Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Looks rather suspicious... web resolution, really high quality. Possibly official promotional material. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: clearly copyvio Pitke (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Mobile upload from a new user with a "throw away" account name. File has no educational value (it depicts an obscene gesture in a bathroom). Senator2029 04:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio. Book cover ChongDae (talk) 05:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: obvious copyright violation. JuTa 20:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal snapshot, no educational value. Article was speedy deleted. Senator2029 05:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The uploader claims to be both the subject and the author of this portrait. That seems unlikely. There is also the question of whether he is actually Alvy Ray Smith, as his username suggests. Since it is against policy to use a famous person's name without confirmation, I have put a note on his talk page asking for it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I have just received a request to identify myself as the source and subject of a portrait in the Commons called Alvy Ray Smith Closeup Portrait.jpg. I am indeed Alvy Ray Smith, cofounder of Pixar. The photo is indeed of me and by me (I used a remote on my Nikon D1X for the shot). I am currently in Dubai at the Cinematic Innovation Summit. I speak tomorrow (6 Dec 2013) on the subject: "Pixar: Creating the Future Again and Again." Does this message suffice as proper identification? You can see other photos of me on my website, alvyray.com, for comparison. I also sent this as a mail message to info-commons@wikimedia.org but used the wrong name for the file. I used AlvyRaySmith_Closeup_byAlvy.jpg by mistake. Alvyray (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn by nom . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
This image is almost identical to File:Paulus Potter - Young Bull.JPG, just a little yellowed. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/63492359@N00/90162261/ Stefan4 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Closed: I accidentally started a deletion discussion when I meant to nominate this for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I upoaded a different one. Albatalad (talk) 15:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Copy of http://www.reiscollection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/image.jpeg Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 09:46, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2024 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Photos of the Agence Meurisse are in the public domain. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. --Aga (d) 16:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: withdaw my DR. France had according en:Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights, en:List_of_countries'_copyright_length 50 pma until 1995. JuTa 10:42, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Uploader claims to also be the image author, but then states that the image is uncopyrighted and in the public domain— without the "author" having designated it as such. In addition, the image has no EXIF data— if the picture were actually taken by the author as has been claimed in the license template then he/ she would almost certainly have been able to provide an image of much higher quality along with the image's EXIF data. Instead, I suspect the uploader is not the author, and in that case the file lacks adequate source information and should be deleted from Commons unless this can be provided (which maybe it can). KDS4444 (talk) 15:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have found the original URL of this image here KDS444 (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep This image was first uploaded to WP:EN in 2004. At that time neither EXIF nor today's high resolutions were common. (My year 2000 version of Corel Photo-Paint 10 does not support EXIF). The original uploader claims to be the author and put a CC-0 (Public Domain) tag on it. I think that "Unlicensed, non-copyrighted hobby photo" is simply the author's way of saying that he has released it as PD. Unless the uploader had a time machine, he can not have taken it from the 2012 web site cited above and Google Search and TinEye show no other use of it. We should be pleased that an outside web developer has chosen to use one of our images rather than accusing our uploader of stealing it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per Jim. Yann (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
wrong drawing - the star must be below the bar - as shown here File:2 - MGefr OA (1).png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The deletion request should be taken back, as the current version ist correct - the star is below the bar! -- Bungert55 (talk) 13:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, nominator withdraw the nomination. Taivo (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2077 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted Cambalachero (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Unfree photo. please check the source 188.104.112.109 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted as an "unfree photo" and reuploaded; it is from the Yale website which states "Copyright © 2017, Yale University. All rights reserved." No evidence of permission as claimed. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Delete, OTRS permission from photographer required to keep, permission of the person in the photo matters very little. seb26 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 17:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Low quality, unused, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by a living artist, Antoon Luyckx. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination: this statue is not in Belgium, but in the Netherlands. BrightRaven (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Yann (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio http://www.google.de/imgres?sa=X&espv=210&es_sm=93&biw=1163&bih=816&tbm=isch&tbnid=J1u2qaU8Bz0y8M:&imgrefurl=http://www.koelner-gruen.de/CMS/Literaturliste.mfpx%3FActiveID%3D1421&docid=_IdYKPmvAW9dbM&imgurl=http://www.koelner-gruen.de/CMS/upload/Uebersichtsplan_111121_1841.jpg&w=3071&h=3584&ei=yDygUpixAa3Q7Abc5ICgAg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=4&vpy=166&dur=1201&hovh=243&hovw=209&tx=57&ty=128&page=1&tbnh=136&tbnw=116&start=0&ndsp=33&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:83 sугсго 08:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Je suis Lise Martin et je n'ai pas autorisé la publication de ces photos, ainsi que la page wikipedia. Je demande donc à ce que soit retiré toutes les photos qui sont sur wikipedia. Atxiki (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Cette photo a été prise lors d'un événement public (Salon du livre de Paris). A priori, la loi nous autorise à la publier.
- (This picture was taken during a public event (Paris book fair), so publication is authorized without the consent of the person depicted.) BrightRaven (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Même raison que ci-dessus. Les menaces de poursuites judiciaires réitérées de cette dame ici et sur WPfr ne favoriseront certainement pas un accord de courtoisie.--Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Si cette dame ne veut pas être prise en photo, elle devrait commencer par ne pas faire d'apparitions publiques. JJ Georges (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep — mais, demandez, Madame, je vous en prie! -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: Je crois q’{{Oppose}} dans un DR est ambigüe. Mieux {{Vk}} ou {{Vd}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
![95 File:""Beach of Bolshoi Fontan" by Leonid Mezheritski.JPG](#File:""Beach_of_Bolshoi_Fontan"_by_Leonid_Mezheritski.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Hindi_film_poster.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 22:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
copyvio: http://www.koelner-gruen.de/CMS/upload/baum4_2381.jpg diba (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Promotional spam Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 22:37, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
private creation, uploaded by a sockpuppet of a blocked user having uploaded several nonsense flags Antemister (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep It may be a private creation, but it's a good one. Sinnamon Girl (talk) 04:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, strongly agree with Sinnamon (talk · contribs) that this is a good image and potentially quite useful and educational value to boot. -- Cirt (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect, fabricated flag for ietnamese-American LGBTs. Nguyen1310 (talk) 01:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Not a reason for deletion. Fry1989 eh? 20:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
User-made personal flag, false and non-representative of Vietnamese-American LGBTs as it claimed, fabricated non-sensical flag.
Additional details: If anyone has basic knowledge on Vietnamese-Americans, Viet-Americans are almost entirely vehemently opposed to the current Vietnamese communist government and its current "red flag gold star" communist national flag, which this flag's design is based on (ie central, large Yellow star). Vietnamese Americans frequently use the former South Vietnamese "gold flag with 3 red stripes" to represent themselves and represent Vietnam. There were months of continuous protests and riots in Orange County, CA in 1999/2000 over the display of the "red flag yellow star" in the past. And, Vietnamese American LGBTs use the standard rainbow flag, alongside the "gold flag 3 red stripes", during the annual Vietnamese Lunar New Year (Tet) parade in Little Saigon.
Check the Wikipedia article on Vietnamese Americans for more information. See here for the deletion decision on another non-sensical, user-made personal flag, this one on "human rights": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Human_Flag_of_Vietnam.svg. Nguyen1310 (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Was originally going to keep this considering its possible educational value and the previous DR attempt, but the fact that it is uploaded by an obvious sock means that we should just delete and deny his attempts at making self-created flags become legitimate. I believe that such self-made flags not officially representative representative of any group, let alone gay rights, do not fall under COM:SCOPE. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I saw that exact picture in a book about the Earth. It should only be deleted if it went to the commons after it went into that book, not if it went to the commons first. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Huh? Why would it matter if or when a public domain photo created by the US Federal Government was published in some book (whose name or publication date you apparently couldn't be bothered to specify)? —LX (talk, contribs) 08:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A public domain (PD) photo can appear in both a book and the Commons. In fact, more than a few PD pictures on the Commons were scanned from books. The Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. essentially states that, in most cases, if the original is in public domain, a copy is as well. Thus, no copyvio. --Rsberzerker (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
no author's permission Sealle (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS needed Ymblanter (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused; bad quality; PNG exists. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It looks to my eye to be an exact duplicate of the linked PNG. PNG formats are generally preferred to JPG formats. --Rsberzerker (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- PNGs are prefered for this kind of image data; JPGs are prefered for other kind of image data (photographic data). Please don’t add to the legend that there is one file format that is good for everything and better than the rest. -- Tuválkin ✉ 13:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:30, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Reupload with no permission. I agree with the notification previously given by --Natuur12 on the upoader's talk page : The problem is that your accountname and the name of the person at the picture are the same. The photographs seem to have taken by a profession photographer so he owns the copyright unless he transfered the rights to you. You can mail to the OTRS-emailadres to arrange the permission. Senator2029 05:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Whether it's on Flicker or not is moot, it's clearly originally from a copyrighted location: Walmart's Soundcheck. http://soundcheck.walmart.com/assets/artists/Year_7/zac_brown_band/PHOTOS/picture_01.jpg Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a derivative image: a photograph but who took the original picture and owns the rights to it? Leoboudv (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Por Dios !, esto es simplemente un dibujo. Es una imagen dibujada, no creo que viole nada.
- La misma esta en wiki ingles
- Pablo Escobar graffitti.jpg. Mira este ejemplo:
- Bruce Lee
- Che Guevara
- Tupac Shakur
- Osama Bin Laden,
- Bin Laden
- Elías (talk) 12:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Tiu via «simpla desegnaĵo» tamen jes atencas ion — ĝi estas ja derivaĵo el foto kies kopirajta situacio estas nekonata, sed tio nepras por pravigi tion ke la derivaĵo estas rajtlibera (kaj ni eĉ ne tuŝis ankoraŭ la temon pri la kopirajto de la foto mem, kiu montras la grafition, eĉ se pro “bona fido” ĝi apartenu al la alŝutinto). Koncerne la angllingva Vikipedio, ĝi ja akceptas bilduzon laŭ licenso pri nekomerca kunteksto, do ĝin mencii ne estas argumento. El viaj kontraŭekzemploj, derivaĵoj el al fama foto de Che Guevara ĝuas rajtliberon pro la specifa permeso de la aŭtoro, Korda, kaj de la situacio de Kubo koncerne internacia kopirajtaj akordoj en 1964. Ĉiuj aliaj estas verŝajne derivaĵoj neliberaj originalaj fotoj — kio esplorendas per si mem. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
error typo Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like a family snap, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Chase 2013 Promo Final SMALL SQUARE.jpg Gbawden (talk) 07:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Inappropriate, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete – File not in use, and it is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Delete per COM:EDUSE. --Senator2029 08:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Serge Tisseron outstanding for achievement.jpg Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep --85.178.214.47 13:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment RfD discussions are not polls, please explain why you think the pic is worth keeping. --Pitke (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete very similar in tone, content and quality as our daily genital selfie deletions. I'm not sure how endowed (*coughsorrycough*) our collections are in the male vanity selfie department, but all in all: nope. If it was of better quality, then perhaps. (Not-that serious mode: DELETE QUICK BEFORE APPLE SUES US!!) --Pitke (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Das Foto ist lt. Beschreibung 1913 aufgenommen worden. Nimmt man günstigstenfalls an, der Fotograf wäre zu diesem Zeitpunkt 20 Jahre alt gewesen, wäre sein Geburtsjahr 1893. Selbst wenn er nur 60 Jahre alt geworden wäre, wäre sein Todesjahr 1953. Damit ist die 70jährige Schutzfrist noch nicht abgelaufen. Greifen (talk) 08:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The subject of the image is "slovenska himna", i.e. "the national anthem of Slovenia". The English translation of the poem along the Slovene verses, which is copyrighted to Janko Lavrin (1887 – 1986), is thus not de minimis. There is no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: DM. Small fragment, which forms a small part of the picture. The entire poem is at several Wikipedia version. Jcb (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by Roland Rens (1952-2007). There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by a living artist, Antoon Luyckx. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Sculpture by a living artist, Antoon Luyckx. There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Par Equisse French Pugs
[edit]files to discuss:
- File:Polo Par Esquisse.jpg -- professional portrait from a show, CR highly unlikely to be held by dog's owner
- File:LouLou Par Esquisse.jpg -- this and the other two: no author info, might be Mark Warwarick (owner of all four dogs) -- no indication of proof whether uploader is the author
- File:Coco Par Esquisse.jpg
- File:Cartier Par Esquisse.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Jef Claerhout
[edit]All these sculptures are located in Belgium (in Bruges, Knokke, Tielt and Wingene). There is no FOP in Belgium. The sculptor, Jef Claerhout is still alive.
- File:Bronzen sculptuur "Willem van Saeftinge", Onder de Toren, Lissewege (Brugge).JPG
- File:Bronzen standbeeld van Willem van Saeftinge, Onder de Toren, Lissewege (Brugge).JPG
- File:Drijvende beeldengroep Ode aan de vrouw, Zegemeer, Knokke (Knokke-Heist).jpg
- File:Tielt Olivier De Neckere.JPG
- File:Zwevezele-Carnavalvierders.jpg
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 09:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Fonske (Leuven)
[edit]The sculptor, Jef Claerhout is still alive. No Fop in Belgium.
BrightRaven (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Uilenspiegelmonument (Damme)
[edit]The sculptor, Jef Claerhout is still alive. There is no FOP in Belgium.
- File:Beestje met grote oren.jpg
- File:Damme 2.jpg
- File:Damme 3.jpg
- File:Damme Tijl Uilenspiegel.JPG
- File:Damme Uilenspiegel.JPG
- File:Damme Uilenspiegelmonument.JPG
- File:Kikkers op het muurtje uit de reeks Uilenspiegel.jpg
- File:Uilenspiegelmonument, kikkers.jpg
- File:Uilenspiegelmonument.jpg
- File:Uit de reeks Uilenspiegel.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
wrong drawing - the star must be below the bar - as shown here File:2 - MGefr OA (1).png L' empereur Charles (talk) 09:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the same reason as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Graffiti in Ljubljana: non-free graffiti, no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 09:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Eben-Ezer
[edit]Building and sculptures by Robert Garcet (1912-2001). There is no FOP in Belgium.
- File:Bull at northeast corner at Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Bull sculpture at northeast side, Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Bull sculpture close-up at northeast side at Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Bull statue at Northeast corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Eagle on top Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Eben Emael Eben-ezer front.jpg
- File:Eben Emael Eben-ezer Sfinx.jpg
- File:Eben-Ezer tower seen from southside.jpg
- File:From the south with stairs and door Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:From the south with stairs Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Gargoyle at southwestside corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Gargoyles at southwestside corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Haie de Wonck, Eben-Ezer seen from the East.jpg
- File:Haie de Wonck, tower seen from the East; Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Lion at the southeast side Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Lion sculpture at southeast side Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Mural and relief on top Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Mural of peacock on top Eben- Ezer.jpg
- File:Mural on top of Eben Ezer.jpg
- File:Mural on top of Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Northwest side corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Northwest side corner of Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Northwest side corner; eagle at Eben-Ezer 2.jpg
- File:Northwest side corner; eagle at Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Sculpture in Eben-Ezer garden.jpg
- File:Sculpture in garden; Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Sculpture of bull at Northwest side Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Seen from garden, southside, Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Southside with main entrance and stairs Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Southwestside corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Sphinx Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Sphinx sculpture at southwest corner Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Tower Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Tower seen from the foot of stairs Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Tower seen from the foot of the stairs Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Two gargoyles at southwestside corner of Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Westside of tower Eben-Ezer.jpg
- File:Westside of tower with Bull and Sphinx sculptures, Eben-Ezer.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 10:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Boerentoren (Antwerp)
[edit]No freedom of panorama in Belgium. Architect died in mid-1940s, so is still covered by copyright.
- File:3959 Antwerpen Schoenmarkt Boerentoren 01.jpg
- File:Antwerpen - Boerentoren.jpg
- File:Boerentoren 3.JPG
- File:Boerentoren 7.JPG
- File:Boerentoren 8.JPG
- File:Boerentoren in Antwerpen.jpg
- File:Boerentoren.JPG
- File:Boerentoren01.jpg
- File:De Boerentoren (The farmers tower).jpg
- File:Kbc-building-antwerpen.redvers.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 10:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Boerentoren (Antwerp)
[edit]Work of architects Jan Vanhoenacker (1875-1958), Émile Van Averbeke (1876-1946) et Joseph Smolderen (1889-1973). There is no FOP in Belgium.
BrightRaven (talk) 10:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
De que forma o editor comprova que é autor da logomarca? Arquivo em alta resolução certamente protegido por direitos autorais. Tonelada (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Italy: the sculptural work is from 1922; no evidence that the author died before 1943. Eleassar (t/p) 11:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I have replaced this image with an accurate image that corresponds with the subject matter of the article Cynthiapinto123 (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No reason for deletion given. --Leyo 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free text (could also be in Italy, where there is no FOP either). Eleassar (t/p) 12:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, I didn't know there is copyright also on signboards. -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 12:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted work Bestiasonica (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted work not in PD Bestiasonica (talk) 12:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted work not in PD. work from an artist not from uploader Bestiasonica (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
copyrighted work not in PD. work from an artist not from uploader Bestiasonica (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. We need source, author , and publication information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. We need source, author , and publication information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. We need source, author , and publication information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. We need source, author , and publication information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very unlikely "own work" as claimed. We need source, author , and publication information. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Statue by Herman de Somer (1923-2008). There is no FOP in Belgium. BrightRaven (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I strongly doubt that this is the uploader's own work, as Lambarek Boumaarafi has been serving a life sentence in an Algerian prison since 1992. The small size and low resolution of the image imply that it was scanned from a photo in a newspaper. I'm not totally clear on what exactly counts as PD for photos taken in Algeria, but there appear to be cutoff dates of "before 1962" and "published before 1987" -- and given that Boumaarafi only became notable as a result of his involvement in an assassination in 1992, I find it unlikely that a newspaper would have published a photo of him before then. DS (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Government work. Not own work by uploader. No evidence of permission from the government. Stefan4 (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Government work. Not own work by uploader. No evidence of permission from the government. Stefan4 (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Government work. Not own work by uploader. No evidence of permission from the government. Stefan4 (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- is there a similar image online? Or do you mean the artwork? What is the situation for other countries' passports?--عبد المؤمن (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Various from country to country. Some passports can be uploaded, some can't. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Passports of Mexico
[edit]Government works. Not own work by uploader. No evidence of permission from the government. Some tagged {{PD-old}}, but there is no evidence that the authors died before 1952.
- File:Data page Mexican passport 07.jpg
- File:Last page Mexican passport 2008.jpg
- File:Mexican Passport 1993.jpg
- File:Mexican passport 2008.jpg
- File:Mexican passport from 1962.JPG
- File:Mexican Passport from 1978.JPG
- File:Mexican Passport Message 2008.jpg
- File:Mx passport entry USA.jpg
- File:Mx passport, picture.jpg
- File:Natalia Sedova Mexican passport.png
- File:Pas91 001-1.jpg
- File:Pasaporte 05.jpg
- File:Pasg1 001.jpg
- File:Pasg2 001.jpg
- File:Passport of Mexico 1991.jpg
- File:Tonys2.pics 538.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Three of the photos are my own personal passports. If we were to concern ourselves with "permission from the government" then most of what is on Wikipedia would not be uploaded. Is your concern simply with Mexican passports or passports in general? If that is the case, what about all the photos relating to passports from the other 200 odd nations in the world? Are they too to be deleted? Aquintero, (talk), 20:21, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Passports are made by governments. Therefore, permission is needed from governments. Some countries have given permission. For example, {{PD-USGov}} makes US passports free to use, whereas {{PD-RU-exempt}} makes Russian passports free to use. I am not aware of any such permission for Mexican passports. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wiki user 843 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Immigration March.jpg cropped from File:2013 Immigration Reform March.jpg
- File:Lee County.jpg --> http://www.flickr.com/photos/virginiaorganizingproject/4878769769/ (2010)
- File:GOTV.jpg --> http://www.flickr.com/photos/virginiaorganizingproject/4110038741 (2009)
- File:HCAN Support.jpg --> http://www.flickr.com/photos/virginiaorganizingproject/3553438201/ (2009)
- File:2013 Immigration Reform March.jpg --> ?
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
These were all pictures taken by uploaders and posted with permission. Please do not delete. -wiki user 843— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki user 843 (talk • contribs)
Info: --> (...) by Gunnex (talk) 07:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Although the source is a federal government site, the exif of this photograph suggests that this image is not taken by a US federal employee on duty. PD-status doubtful. Lymantria (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Comment This DR also includes these two files:
_is_installed_at_Northrop_Grum.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
File: USS Enterprise heads for Newport News to defuel, June 20th, 2013.jpg
--High Contrast (talk) 20:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep The source of the image clearly states "John Whalen" as author who is obviously a US Navy employee (see the information text on the source page written next to the photo). The EXIF info gives "John Whalen" as the author, too. What "©2013NewportNewsShipbuilding" means remains unclear. If your doubts are only based on this, please contact navy.mil or "Newport News Shipbuilding" for further information. --High Contrast (talk) 15:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Delete Situation is pretty clear - it's not made by a FedGov employee but by an emplyoee of the shipbuilding company. Mistagged courtesy image, images made by navy personnell are clearly tagged with name and rank. --Denniss (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Delete I have to agree with Denniss' arguments. The copyright likely belongs to Newport News Shipbuilding in this case or else the camera EXIF would says US Military/US Navy. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Keep Situation is pretty clear - it was created by a FedGov employee. As the source indicates: U.S. Navy photo by John Whalen. --188.104.112.109 18:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Keep I can agree to both arguments but the text says "U.S. Navy photo by John Whalen/Released". But the only way to be sure is to send an e-mail and ask. --MGA73 (talk) 11:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
- Newport News Shipbuilding is a contract worker for the Navy but they are not employees of the Fed government thus the images do not fall under PD-USGov, especially if there's a clear mismatch between the navy site claim and the info from exif data. See also the John Whalen images listed here - USN image courtesy of Northrop Grumman (which is the parent company of NNS). So someone responsible for the Navy site forgot to add the courtesy string. --Denniss (talk) 12:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no clear mismatch between the EXIF information and info on the Navy.mil site. Your personal interpretation is so. To be honest, EXIF info are generally a very bad "source" to address to because they are oftenly not correct or accurate enought. And, they can easily be changed. navsource.org is also a very bad source for purchasing clear info - it is a private site of doubtful reliance. --High Contrast (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a clear mismatch as nobody can prove this person is a fed gov employee and I have provided more than enough evidence he isn't. Also properly made USN images usually have name + rank in both the news message and in exif data. --Denniss (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- You have not provided any evidence - just your speculation. Try to differentiate this, please. And no, it is not true that US governmental images are always published with the photographer's rank. This is mostly the case but there are enough example when this is not the case. For example this image - we do not know anything about it, not even author, EXIF or any other information. The fact that an official US Navy site claims that this person created an official Navy photo for them matches out your arguments. --High Contrast (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is a clear mismatch as nobody can prove this person is a fed gov employee and I have provided more than enough evidence he isn't. Also properly made USN images usually have name + rank in both the news message and in exif data. --Denniss (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- There is no clear mismatch between the EXIF information and info on the Navy.mil site. Your personal interpretation is so. To be honest, EXIF info are generally a very bad "source" to address to because they are oftenly not correct or accurate enought. And, they can easily be changed. navsource.org is also a very bad source for purchasing clear info - it is a private site of doubtful reliance. --High Contrast (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Considering that hundreds of "John Whalen"´s photos are available via http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=65940342@N07&q=John%20Whalen (= Flickrstream of Huntington Ingalls = en:Newport News Shipbuilding) and also via Huntington Ingalls Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/HuntingtonIngallsIndustries, example)), unlikely a FedGov employee. See also Huntington Ingalls news release (2011): "(...) John Whalen, who has worked on the photography team for 29 years. (...)". Gunnex (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
- Assuming something to be "unlikely" is on a very weak base. One should follow MGA73's proposal above since this issue is not this clear as another person is spreading. --High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- And you are assuming somthing to be likely. We had too many issues in the past with mistagged courtesy images and there's sufficient evidence to disprove this as a fedgov work. --Denniss (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I respect the written information. You are overrating EXIF information and you are baking some "very obvious" copyright violation. --High Contrast (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- And you are assuming somthing to be likely. We had too many issues in the past with mistagged courtesy images and there's sufficient evidence to disprove this as a fedgov work. --Denniss (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Assuming something to be "unlikely" is on a very weak base. One should follow MGA73's proposal above since this issue is not this clear as another person is spreading. --High Contrast (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep: I have sent an email to ask for clarification from USN, hopefully they will reply in a few days. For the moment, I trust the descriptions here and here, that they are U.S. Navy photo by John Whalen and rights are released.Oneam (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
- The first photo is clearly marked as courtesy photo and thus non-free. --Denniss (talk) 09:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Fresh reply from USN indicates the rights are released:
Peter, The photos you refer to were taken by the shipyards but have been released by the U.S. Navy. You may use the photos but credit must be given to the appropriate shipyard, such as "U.S. Navy photo courtesy of (the shipyard) by (the photographer)". Very Respectfully, Margaret Reborchick
Navy Media Content Service Navy Office of Information 1200 Navy Pentagon Washington, D.C. 20350-1200 (703) 614-9154
Should I have a screenshot for this email? I will have to blur my email address though if you don't mind.Oneam (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
Screenshot anyway.Oneam (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
- Thanks for this. Doesn't help with the licensing issue though as the copyright belongs to the shipyard or the individual photographer. Those images do not fall under PD-USGov. "Released" by the navy is just a clearance for public use and no release of rights. --Denniss (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Oneam, thank you for your help. Can you write back and ask the person if those images are in the public domain? Or if the photographer is a US Navy employee? If one of those two questions is answered with "yes", then we should keep them. --High Contrast (talk) 19:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
- Sure! I have just made a reply, and hopefully they will get back to me. Otherwise I will have to make a new feedback in navy.mil .Oneam (talk) 02:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It seems very clear for a number of reasons that this is a contractor image and is not PD. Most telling is the statement "You may use the photos but credit must be given..." If the image had been taken by a Federal employee and was PD, not credit can be required. If Ms. Reborchick responds that the image is PD, you must then ask her to explain why credit is required. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
_in_dry_dock_view_from_dock_2013.JPG){kind=link}
No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Built in 1955, sculptors died in 1994 and 1977. --BaseSat (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Donets'kaODA.jpg
- File:Donetsk 0016.jpg
- File:Donetsk shevchenko 01.jpg
- File:Donetsk shevchenko 02.jpg
- File:Taras Schewtschenko Denkmal Donezk 1333.jpg
- File:Taras Schewtschenko Denkmal Donezk.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Шевченкові (Донецьк) - 1.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Шевченкові (Донецьк) - 2.JPG
- File:Пам'ятник Шевченкові (Донецьк) - 3.JPG
- File:Памятник Т. Г. Шевченко - украинскому поэту..jpg
- File:Памятник Т.Г.Шевченко (г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 001.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 002.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 003.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 004.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 007.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 009.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 011.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 012.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко в Донецке 014.jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко Т.Г. (г.Донецк).jpg
- File:Памятник Шевченко Т.Г. в Донецке.jpg
_-_1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BaseSat (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Ukraine
- File:Rise up, Ukraine! (Donetsk) 12.JPG
- File:Seva don.jpg
- File:ДТУМ3.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Т. Г. Шевченку. Донецьк.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Т.Г. Шевченко.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Тарасові Шевченку 2.jpg
- File:Пам'ятник Тарасові Шевченку, українському поету., Донецьк, б-р ім. Шевченка..JPG
- File:Памятник Шевченко Т.Г. в Донецке - Blacked out.jpg
- File:Шевченко (496459133).jpg
_12.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose at least the following:
- File:Памятник Шевченко Т.Г. в Донецке - Blacked out.jpg. This photo explicitly blacks out copyrightable parts and is used as an illustration of what is allowed under freedom of panorama in Ukraine. I don't think the pedestal is copyrightable because it's a simple geometric shape, and all copyrightable work (statue itself and reliefs on the pedestal) were blacked out. It is used on pages like wmua:Свобода панорами.
- File:Rise up, Ukraine! (Donetsk) 12.JPG and File:ДТУМ3.jpg because they fall under copyright exemption for current events. This provision is broad, see Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2013/12#Ukrainian_copyright_law_current_events_provision. Both events are notable: en:Rise up, Ukraine! for the first one and first ever Vasyl Stus commemoration by uk:Донецьке обласне Товариство української мови імені Т. Г. Шевченка for the second one
- NickK (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- @NickK: sorry but, "current events" only images are unacceptable because "current events and reporting" purpose is not compatible to COM:Licensing. A 2007 resolution by Wikimedia Foundation explicitly mandated Commons to only host free content. The censored one may be acceptable though, if it is in scope. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: Well, court cases I mentioned seem to put 'current events and reporting' as an exemption similar to FOP, as what matters is not the context of use but the context of creation. FOP is also technically a copyright exemption, allowing to use a copyrighted work under some conditions. This 'current events and reporting' also allows to use a copyrighted work under some conditions. The condition in this case is that the primary focus is a current event: in case of these photos the focus of File:Rise up, Ukraine! (Donetsk) 12.JPG and File:ДТУМ3.jpg are current events. In Wikipedia terminology it is a version of COM:DM: Ukrainian copyright law basically considers a copyrighted building or structure are always DM if they are a background for a (notable) event — NickK (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, news events don't supercede the copyright of the authors. Keep the censored one as it can illustrate Ukraine's lack of FOP. --Abzeronow (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Low quality audio, very low level, includes web-addres in the video, not used Motopark (talk) 15:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by INC, closed by . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Complex built in 1985.
- File:Будто ловит порывы свободы добытой !!!!.jpg
- File:Будто ловит свободы порывы добытой.jpg
- File:Имена Героев.jpg
- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 2.jpg
File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 3.jpg- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 4.jpg
- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 5.jpg
File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 6.jpg- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту».jpg
- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту»1.jpg
- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту»3.jpg
File:Меморіальний комплекс Героям Ельтігенського десанту.jpgFile:Меморіальний комплекс Героям Ельтігенського десанту1.jpg- File:Рассекает гнев ярых ветров .....jpg
- File:Рассекает гнев ярых ветров.jpg
- File:Стена славы.jpg
- File:Стена Славы.jpg
BaseSat (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 3.jpg, File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 6.jpg, File:Меморіальний комплекс Героям Ельтігенського десанту.jpg, File:Меморіальний комплекс Героям Ельтігенського десанту1.jpg — there is no one sculpture or building --Butko (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree, I'm withdrawing them. I should be slightly more attentive. --BaseSat (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Имена Героев.jpg, File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту» 4.jpg, File:Меморіальний комплекс «Героям Ельтігенського десанту»3.jpg — I think, that these plaques are trivial. Please see Commons:Threshold of originality --Butko (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: most, kept some per discussion. It looks like the plaques are ust lists of credits -- if so, they are not copyrighted -- if that is not correct, then they should also be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Likely a derivative work from a satellite or aerial image. Underlying lk (talk) 16:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
File Changed
[edit]
Aerial photograph removed. File changed
- Well done, thank you. I withdraw the nomination.--Underlying lk (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revision deleted. INeverCry 19:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
non-free video game cover art, not pd-art Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The uploader is not the copyright holder of this image, it's a composite of newspaper scans. Underlying lk (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree The original uploader is Morne and he is an employee of Media24 ([1]), which is the owner of the Die Burger Newspaper. --I90Christian (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: He may indeed work for the copyright holder, but that does not give him the right to license these generally. IN order to restore these we will need a license from an officer of the corporation using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
author Leonid Mezheritski died in 2007. No FOP in Russia Mahufi (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
![17:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/05#c-Mahufi-2013-12-05T17:14:00.000Z-File:""Beach_of_Bolshoi_Fontan"_by_Leonid_Mezheritski.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
![19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/05#c-INeverCry-2013-12-12T19:44:00.000Z-File:""Beach_of_Bolshoi_Fontan"_by_Leonid_Mezheritski.JPG){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Oaklandschi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status: Both files (uploaded on 05.12.2013) previously published at University of Chichester´s website (© University of Chichester) via...
- File:Learning Resource Centre, Chichester.jpg = http://www.chi.ac.uk/school-enterprise-management-leadership/undergraduate/undergraduate-courses/ba-hons-human-resource = http://www.chi.ac.uk/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_large/public/lrc-overview_0.jpg (last modified: 2012, but no exif)
- File:ArtOne Chichester.jpg = http://www.chi.ac.uk/department-fine-art/undergraduate/ba-hons-fine-art = http://www.chi.ac.uk/sites/default/files/styles/gallery_large/public/art-chichester-uni.jpg (last modified: 2012, but no exif).
Per exif most likely taken by professional photographer "Donna Kirstein" (= http://donnakirstein.com/). Permission needed.
Gunnex (talk) 17:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The photographer, Donna Kirsten has granted permission to use the images. What is the best way to prove this? 194.66.216.40 09:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please follow the instructions via Commons:OTRS (--> "If you are not the copyright holder"). Gunnex (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abou Jawad Noureddine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Part of this files - low resolution, without exif copyrighted images. Other images - low resolution, taken with different cameras.
- Copyrighted:
- File:Ahljwayya6.jpg
- File:Ahljwayya3.jpg
- File:Ahljwayya5.jpg
- File:Ahljwayya4.jpg
- File:Ahljwayya1.jpg
- File:Ahljwayya2.jpg
- With different cameras:
- File:سماحة العلامة الشيخ عبد الحسن نور الدين العاملي.JPG
- File:She5 alinoureddine.jpg
- File:She5 abdelhassan.jpg
- File:Sayed abdelkarim salat.jpg
- File:Sayed abdelkarim.jpg
Art-top (talk) 14:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 22:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Abou Jawad Noureddine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion for https://www.facebook.com/ahljwaya. No educational purpose: Not used. Additional: Permission needed, as all files were previously published on FB.
Nominating also:
- File:الشيخ عبد الحسن نور الدين جويا.jpg - mysteriously watermarked, unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF.
- [[::File:إحدى أحياء مدينة جويـّـا المطلة على الطبيعة.jpg]] - per above
- File:إحدى أحياء مدينة جويـّـا المطلة على الطبيعة.jpg
- File:اعلام جويا.jpg
- File:مدينة جويا في الشتاء.png
- File:مدينة جويا.png
- File:Logo ahl jwaya group.png
- File:الشيخ عبد الحسن نور الدين جويا.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Not in PD in the US as it was created after 1946. Underlying lk (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I Dont understand about the date of 1996 (date of the US law at the time). We are now in 2013.
- There is no US copyright on this image. This image is seen on foreing WP as South african WP (in afrikaans) or France. If this image is not considered to be in the public domain in the United States of America, that does not mean it's not in the public domain on the rest of the planet as well. In South Africa it has been in the public domain since 2011. Laws of the USA do not apply in South Africa, France or anywhere else in the world outside the United States. Or you can close all the foreign WP.
- Why not also delete these historical File:Rivonia Trial - Mandela and brothers.jpg, File:Albert Lutuli nobel.jpg, File:Sharpville-massacre.jpg, File:Mandela burn pass 1960.jpg, File:Architects of apartheid.jpg, File:Liberal veldtog.jpg ? 212.30.122.135 10:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid to say that they all might have to be deleted. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law: files need to be also in public domain in the United States, because that's where the Wikimedia servers are located.--Underlying lk (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid it's also sounds like Usa rules over the world. It's surprising to read that a 1996 US law may set deadlines for foreign copyright without respect of the copyright foreign laws. It's very disappointed for all the contributors of foreign WP. 86.217.104.67 14:57, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid to say that they all might have to be deleted. See Commons:Licensing#Interaction of United States copyright law and non-US copyright law: files need to be also in public domain in the United States, because that's where the Wikimedia servers are located.--Underlying lk (talk) 09:22, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
like scan from typographical work Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
source site does not contain information for a free license this photo Ю. Данилевский (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong media (text only); probably non-notable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong media (mostly text); probably non-notable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong media (text only); probably non-notable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
For some reason, unbeknownst to me, it was deemed not a copyvio by Rillke. This is the original source: http://talent.adweek.com/gallery/Clare-Grant-Seth-Green-Christmas-Card/5478283, where it is licensed as CC BY-NC-ND 3.0, a license not compatible with Commons. The Flickr account in the Commons description is someone flickr washing images. Nymf (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- adweek.com: Created: 10/11/12; License: Attribution Non-commercial No Derivatives
- Flickr: 12 November 2012; License: CC-By-SA 2.0
- I am not entirely sure if it is a Flickr-washing account but you are right, likely not the copyright holder. However, I am unable to get the full resolution (3,000 × 3,026 px) from http://talent.adweek.com/gallery/Clare-Grant-Seth-Green-Christmas-Card/5478283, that's why I removed the copyvio tag. -- Rillke(q?) 19:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Far too many images on that account that are licensed to others for it to be a serious account. This is a Getty Images shot, for example. Nymf (talk) 20:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. Uploader added {{PD-ineligible}}, which seems to me obviously not apllying for this map. JuTa 19:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Hallo JuTa, kurze Gegenfrage was stört dich hier am CopyRight?? Manchmal hilft auch einfache konstruktive Mitarbeit, bemängeln kann jeder....Gruß, M.Wilken
--M.Wilken (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Alle Dateien auf Commons müssen frei lizensiert sein, das ist eines der Grundprinzipen hier. Deine Angabe dass diese Karte keine Schöfungshöhe besitzt ist zumindest gewagt. Und bitte lass jetzt doch den Löschantrag in der Bildbeschreibungssite bis er von einem Admin entschieden worden ist. Danke. --JuTa 21:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: THe map is clearly copyrighted -- see the terms of use at the source, arcgis.com . Therefore this work infringes on that copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2069 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2041 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong media (text only); unused; apparently not notable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong media (text only); unused; apparently not notable. -- Tuválkin ✉ 20:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2040 2036 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The stamp was issued in 1941 and is in the public domain in Germany. If it is still copyrighted in the United States, then no longer than 2036. The overprint is not eligible for copyright. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 10:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK I changed the undeletion year. --JuTa 18:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). Sculptor die 1921, but its unknown when the foto was made. JuTa 20:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве, маленькое разрешение файла, отсутствие EXIF-данных. Dogad75 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2025 (95 years after the latest possible publication). JuTa 20:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2069 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This page justifies a PD claim with a link to a site belonging to the Secretary of State, which allows reading and copying, but says nothing about commercial use and warns that there may be material on the site that is copyrighted. The image source page has no copyright information one way or the other, but does have a logo from http://access.wa.gov/ which has an explicit copyright notice. Without clear evidence of permission for commercial use, we cannot keep this image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2036 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Die Marke ohne Überdruck wurde im Amtsblatt des Reichspostministeriums veröffentlicht. Der Überdruck macht daraus kein "neues Werk". Es gilt weiterhin die Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt und nach meinem Kenntnisstand ist eine Veröffentlichung im Amtsblatt "Public Domain". Gruß kandschwar (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then the current license template {{PD-Germany-§134-KUG}} would be wrong here. Which is the correct license? --JuTa 21:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- Siehe: de:Reichskanzler Adolf Hitler (Briefmarkenserie)
- Auszug:
- Im Amtsblatt des Reichspostministeriums erschien in der Ausgabe Nr. 61 vom 1. Juli 1941 die Verfügung Nr. 353/1941, in der die neue Dauermarkenserie vorgestellt wurde:
Die Postwertzeichen der Dauermarkenreihe werden künftig mit dem Kopfbild des Führers hergestellt und vom 1. August 1941 an bei allen Postämtern und Amtsstellen abgegeben. Außer den bisherigen Werten 1 bis 80 Reichspfennig sind Marken zu 16 und 24 Rpf vorgesehen. Später folgen noch die Werte zu 1, 2, 3 und 5 RM, deren Herausgabe und Einzelheiten besonders bekanntgegeben werden. Die frühere 100-Rpf-Marke wird nicht mehr hergestellt.
Den Entwurf der neuen Rpf-Werte hat Professor Richard Klein, München, nach einem Lichtbild des Reichsbildberichterstatters, Professor Heinrich Hoffmann, angefertigt. Diese Marken werden in der Reichsdruckerei in Berlin hergestellt. Für die Werte zu 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20 und 24 Rpf ist die frühere Größe 21,5 x 25,5 mm beibehalten worden, während die Werte zu 25, 30, 40, 50, 60 und 80 Rpf die Größe 24,5 x 29,15 mm haben. Die Marken bis 8 Rpf sind in Buchdruck, die Werte von 10. bis 80 Rpf sind in Stahlstich gedruckt. Die Freimarken-Wertstempel für Postkarten usw. sind sämtlich in Buchdruck hergestellt worden. Für alle Marken wird jetzt Papier ohne Wasserzeichen verwendet, und zwar für Buchdruckmarken gestrichenes, für Stahlstichmarken ungestrichenes. Freimarkenheftchen erscheinen später. Die Farben der Marken sind: 1 Rpf grau 3 hellbraun 4 stahlblau 5 grün 6 blauviolett 8 hellrot 10 schwarzbraun 12 dunkelrot 15 rotbraun 16 blaugrün 20 hellblau 24 gelbbraun 25 dunkelblau 30 olivgrün 40 rotviolett 50 schwarzgrün 60 dunkelbraun 80 schwarzblau
Abbildung einer 6-Rpf-Marke in ¾ natürlicher Größe auf der Vorseite.
Min-Z 2041-0
— Amtsblatt des Reichspostministeriums – Bekanntmachungen der Deutschen Reichspost - Ausgabe A, in: Berlin, 1. Juli 1941, Nr. 61, Verfügung-Nr. 353/1941, S. 409–410
- Schon, aber was sagt dis über die Lizenz aus? --JuTa 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Was under copyright in 1996, therefore not free in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The listed source produces a 404 error. There is no evidence here that this image is freely licensed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
удаление незаконно. Файл законно опубликован в 1940 году. Автор неизвестен. Доказывать, что он умер до 1943 года я не должен - лицензия, под которой опубликовано это изобрадение такое действие не предполагает.--Andrey dementev (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Пользователь загрузил изображение как находящееся в общественном достоянии. Это утверждение не подтверждается правообладателем изображения Государственным архивом Приморского края. В ответе на мой запрос архив разъясняет, что так как автор снимка и время его создания неизвестны, то изображение не может считаться в общественном достоянии. В данной ситуации снимок может быть опубликован только на условиях "добросовестного использования". 2) Изображение имеет неполное описание: отсутствует информация "Строительство № 213" с оригинала фотодокумента, хранящегося в Государственном архиве Приморского края. 3) В имя и описание изображения добавлена непроверенная информация, основанная на ошибочном предположении того, что на снимке изображён Владивостокский лагерь, в то время как на самом деле снимок сделан в бухте Находка Приморского края. 4) Изображение загружено в Викисклад с зеркальным отображением оригинального архивного снимка. 1) The uploader claims the image is in the Public Domain, but the image copyright holder (the State Archive of Primorsky Territory) does not confirm this statement on my request. According to the info provided by the Archive the image author and date of the image creation are unknown, that is why the image may not be considered to be in the Public Domain. In this situation the image may be published for fair use only. 2) The image description is incomplete: the text string “Construction No. 213” as it stated on the original archive image being kept in the Sate Archive of Primorsky Territory is missing. 3) The image name and description have additional unconfirmed information based on the erroneous assumption that the Vladivostok camp was shown on the image, while the image was actually taken at Nakhodka Bay of Primorsky territory. 4) The image was uploaded to Wikimedia as mirror-flipped if compared with original archive one. Gaggy Dun (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- В обоснование первого пункта заявки на удаление файла изображения привожу письмо Государственного архива Приморского края, в третьем параграфе которого говорится о невозможности причислить данный фотодокумент к общественному достоянию в РФ в соответствии со статьями 1281 и 1282 Гражданского кодекса РФ. Из разъяснения также видно, что пользователь указал дату съёмки 1940 год не имея на то архивных данных, чем подтверждается предположительный характер описания файла.--Gaggy Dun (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- In evidence that provides proof of the first item of the request for file deletion please see the link to the letter from State Archive of Primorsky Territory, the third paragraph of which is saying about uncertainty to attribute the mentioned photo to Public Domain in Russia under clauses 1281 and 1282 of Civil Code of Russian Federation. The fact that the uploader mentioned 1940 as image creation time having no archive info for doing so is seen from the letter as well; this confirms the hypothetical nature of image description.--Gaggy Dun (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- В подтверждение факта загрузки отзеркаленного изображения файла, кроме собственно архивного фотодокумента, свидетельствуют более ранние публикации на дружественных ресурсах в Сети: здесь и здесь.--Gaggy Dun (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
- In support the fact of uploading the mirror-flipped image the earlier publications on the friendly web-site here and here are indicative, along with the archive image itself.--Gaggy Dun (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Seems unlikely the photographer died before 1943. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:04, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2034 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The author listed in the description and the EXIF is not the uploader. It appears on a copyrighted web page in a much smaller size. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2075 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2077 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). JuTa 20:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2049 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please stop this. There is an official letter from the legal adviser of Israel's Prime Minister's Office (That manages the Israeli Photo Collection) that clarifies the fact that this (and other photos taken more than 50 years ago) are in public domain! User:Matanya an administrator on commons is trying to clarify this issue with the legal counselling. Please wait a little bit with this wholesale deletions of Israeli pictures until the issue is clarified. Oyoyoy (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I do not doubt that the images are now PD in Israel, but according COM:URAA they had to be PD in Israel beginning of 1996, which is not the case as far as we know. If Israel has a 50 pr rule in 1996 any images past 1945 were not in PD in Israel on 1.1.1996 which makes them still copyrighted in USA accoring URAA. I dont see that any investigations could change these facts. regards. --JuTa 20:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: 1954 image, therefore under copyright in 1996, therefore it does not clear URAA and is still undercopyright in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2047 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:DIU after request on COM:UR. --Alan (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image became and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in January 12, 1952 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I think that the source is the National Photo Collection, which probably publish this photo before 1989. Ovedc (talk) 08:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See Hana's explanation above. Oyoyoy (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1952 must have been unpublished nowhere for 37 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. -FASTILY 19:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2045 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2046 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2043 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2075 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2044 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I, er, do not believe this falls under COM:SCOPE. Unused on Wikimedia projects. Jean-Fred (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2075 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2022 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:24, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2047 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Restored per COM:DIU after request on COM:UR. --Alan (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989. If it was not published until after March 1, 1989 then it will still be copyright in the US. As there is no proof as to how this image is and remains PD in the US it should be deleted as per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 01:00, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is also no evidence that this was not published before March 1, 1989. It seems to me that this is attempt to by pass the community decision in Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. This picture was taken in 1952 and it is part of The National Photo Collection of Israel see here and was published than. In the picture you can see 2 member of the Knesset Finance Committee in the Knesset cafeteria. Realy I do not understand the purpos of this act, There is no problem with this picture. Hanay (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- This only your opinion, this is not a fact. I added to the picture a link to the picture page in The National Photo Collection of Israel. You can see the publication date there. I quote here what User:Prokurator11 wrote in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aharon Hoter Yishai.JPG : Despite the neutrally phrased disguise, the nomination is clearly based on URAA-related arguments, which, as the community has quite clearly stated, may not be used as the sole reason for deletion. The only relevance of proof of publication before March 1, 1989 (the date the US joined the Berne convention), would be for the purpose of establishing the applicability of COM:Subsisting copyright in the context of URAA copyright restoration. However, it is not sufficient to establish that the work is not in public domain in the US under URAA (and it is evidently not). The relevant question would be whether the work is in public domain under the applicable law other than URAA. Under PD:Israel the publication date has no legal implication, since it is the date of the creation of the work that matters under the applicable law, and there is a sufficient evidence regarding this image being PD in the source country, as in the US (otherwise as due to URAA). Hanay (talk) 05:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- The COM:EVID policy is very clear on who has to demonstrate what and it is the uploader or someone wishing to retain the image who have the burden of proof. Absent the proof demonstrating how this file has ever entered into the Public Domain in the US it should be deleted as per the COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 04:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Is this a war of attrition? This 62 year old picture is clearly in public domain, in Israel and around the world. Oyoyoy (talk) 04:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- You need to demonstrate that it is PD in the US (as per COM:L), it was for exactly this type of picture that the US Congress passed 17 U.S.C. § 303 in the hope that they would be published, so it really is is not clear that this image has ever been in the Public Domain in the US. LGA talkedits 05:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep if what LGA is trying to say is true, then the picture that was taken in 1952 must have been unpublished nowhere for 37 years. it doesn't seems to me to be a reasonable doubt. Ely1 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly PD in Israel, unclear status in US; according to WMF legal opinion, such images don't present a problem, unless there is a reason to believe that it's copyrighted in the US. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Just to clarify; the status of the work in the source country (Israel) is not relevant to it's status in the US as the US does not apply the rule of shorter term. Knowing the date of publication along with the nature of that publication is the only way of confirming if this work has ever been PD in the US. It is very common for national archives to maintain collections of documents and photographs that are closed to the public and are only released after long after the event (the WP page on the Israel State Archives says 30 years). In summary unless a first publication date for this is known and where it was published and if necessary that the publication did not have a copyright notice it can not be assumed to have ever been be PD in the US, and if it has never been PD in the US it was not covered by the URAA. LGA talkedits 03:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that the WMF has issued a legal opinion that the problem is only with images that are certain to be copyrighted in the US. For images where there is reasonable doubt, there is no legal reason to delete. If the only reason for this deletion is a certain quirk of Commons policy that tries to be holier than the Pope, then (as I stated multiple times in the main URAA discussion) what every Commons user should be trying to do is change the policy, not delete the images. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- The only way that it is not copyright in the US is if it was published in the US before 1989 and that publication did not have the correct copyright notice. Now given there is nothing to suggest publication in Israel or anywhere else before that date, let alone the US, I don't think there can be much no doubt that this image is in copyright in the US. LGA talkedits 07:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's also important to note that the WMF has issued a legal opinion that the problem is only with images that are certain to be copyrighted in the US. For images where there is reasonable doubt, there is no legal reason to delete. If the only reason for this deletion is a certain quirk of Commons policy that tries to be holier than the Pope, then (as I stated multiple times in the main URAA discussion) what every Commons user should be trying to do is change the policy, not delete the images. —Ynhockey (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep See explanation above. Ovedc (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of publication prior to March 1, 1989 -FASTILY 19:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
- Restored by Yannf, differing opinion from closing admin, and seemingly reflecting the above consensus his reasoning — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
While this image is without question {{PD-Israel}} there is no indication that it is free in the US or any other country that does not use rule of shorter term.Following Wikimedia Foundation issued the following statement on 14 February 2012 where they recommended "Commons community should still examine media on a case-by-case basis" and the long standing requirement of COM:L that images must be free to use in both United States and in the source country this image fails on the first of those and should be deleted. It lacks any firm proof of publication in either Israel or the US prior to March 1, 1989 and should therefore should be deleted as failing COM:L as not being free in the United States. LGA talkedits 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- That is enough of your repetition. There is a community consensus above that the probability is that the files have been published due to the nature of their history. It is an abuse of your participation to continue your deletion requests with the same arguments. Please leave it be. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2043 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2034 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The stamps were issued in 1932 and are in the public domain in Germany. If they are still copyrighted in the United States, then no longer than 2027. Everything else in this postcard, including the handwritten text, is not eligible for copyright. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 10:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here I don't think its only the stamps, but also th text on the postcard. --JuTa 18:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hast du den Text gelesen? Der hat doch nicht ernsthaft Schöpfungshöhe. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree that the text has a USA copyright -- it is more than one sentence. However, that is a problem for 2027, not now. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2040 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- The stamps were issued in 1941 and are in the public domain in Germany. If they are still copyrighted in the United States, then no longer than 2036. Everything else in this postcard, including the handwritten text, is not eligible for copyright. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here I dont think its only the stamps, but also to text on the postcard. --JuTa 18:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Der Text auf der hier sichtbaren Seite der Postkarte lautet:
- Bln., den 21. III. 45
M. lb. guten Eltern! - Noch immer sind wir ohne Nachricht von Euch! Wir finden nur eine Erklärung, dass das dortige Postamt u. die Bahn so stark beschädigt sind, dass Ihr keine Möglichkeit habt, Post absenden zu können. An etwas
- Bln., den 21. III. 45
- Das willst du nicht ernsthaft für ein urheberrechtlich geschütztes Werk halten. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree that the text has a copyright, but that is a problem for later. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2079 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2024 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2022 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2077 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
No educational value, poor quality Torsch (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2071 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2066 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I won't refuse to the nomination if the file is still copyrighted in the US. - Fma12 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2046 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
_-_Hindi_film_poster.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Hindi_film_poster.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2045 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
_-_Hindi_film_poster.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
_-_Hindi_film_poster.jpg){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2052 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- No FOP in Saudi Arabia, see COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia.
- Is this a copyvio of the photo at http://www.alriyadh.com/2007/11/21/article295631.html ? Stefan4 (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2027 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:55, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Released confirmable under CC-BY-SA 3.0 by Brazilian artist Denis Mandarino who "vectorized" (this is also the file name: "Gisele Bundchen-vetorizada.jpg" in the related archive) a photo, per http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1850776064/rg418093568 = "2006, Photo by John Shearer - © WireImage.com". Obviously a COM:DW, but the file was artistically "distorted" in a manner that the origin is not more really traceable (ok... Google traced it back to "Photo by John Shearer", hmm...). The question here is: How many amount of (intelectual) input is needed to gain a new copyright even if the original work was copyrighted by someone else... Gunnex (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: Enough original artistic input does warrant copyright over the derivative work, but cannot alter the original’s copyright. (He needs to learn what is vectorization, too.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Files on File:Jeddah Montage.jpg
[edit]
See COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia.
Stefan4 (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 21:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2018 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Very dubious author claim. There is a slightly bigger copy here (our copy is 5 days older) and an even bigger copy here (our copy is several years older). Stefan4 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2022 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Saudi Arabia. Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2034 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2020 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2035 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:20, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) --MGuf (d) 11:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ravel died in 1937, his work should have been PD 50 years later on 1/1/1988 (plus war prolongations), but three years before the 85-660 law switched the rights to 70 years for musical compositions, so it was still not PD until 2008 in France. The file (and the likes) should be transferred to the French wikipedia. Biem (talk) 07:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) ----MGuf (d) 10:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, see Commons:Deletion requests/Music of Ravel. Graham87 (talk) 01:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
</noinclude> This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be PD-US, per http://imslp.org/wiki/Bol%C3%A9ro_(Ravel,_Maurice). Work was first performed in 1928 and first published in 1929. Ravel died in 1937. There's an excellent case to be made for fair use, IMO, but that's not valid here. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep, Ravel dies more than 70 years, no? (but sure the author of Bolero is not LITTLEJAZZMAN, this file is a composite file, authors are Ravel first, LITTEJAZZMAN only for drawing) --MGuf (d) 11:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- What the nomination says is that it is copyrighted per notice at the time of publication in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added dates of publication and author's death to nomination for clarity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- What the nomination says is that it is copyrighted per notice at the time of publication in the United States. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Kept: PD. See http://www.les-infostrateges.com/article/1201392/le-casse-tete-du-calcul-de-la-duree-du-droit-d-auteur Yann (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2023 (95 years after publication). JuTa 22:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
It says that this image was published before 1964 without any renewal, but it doesn't say where it was published, so the claim is unverifiable. All we have is a link which points directly to the image. We can't tell what that link points to or whether that is a published copy. Stefan4 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Here's the copy from Dr. Macro's terms and conditions:
- "Ownership and Copyright
- We've spent a lot of time preparing these scans, so please don't use them for personal gain. You're free to download them, but that's it. Please send us an email if you would like to use any photos or other content on our site for commercial purposes."
- So there's no indication that everything on the site is in the public domain, as the disclaimer re: commercial use wouldn't need to be there otherwise. IMHO, everything on the site should be thought of as non-PD unless it can be proven otherwise. We hope (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
not in an educational way usable, bad perspective - simple exhebitionst image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Photo in Lithuania museam - No FoP in Lithuania Ronhjones (Talk) 23:28, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Created for a fake article via es:Leo Alexander Franco, in SD. Gunnex (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
copy of (for example) http://kluc.cbslocal.com/photo-galleries/2013/07/24/sammy-adams/ Ponyo (talk) 23:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status, per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by TV Brasil + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Allan Sieber.jpeg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fernanda Venturini.jpg: Apparently TV Brasil is a little bit exaggerating in his CC BY 3.0-declaration via {{TV Brasil}}:
- Sourced with http://tvbrasil.ebc.com.br/delapraca/post/o-mangue-de-chico-science-no-de-la-pra-ca = http://tvbrasil.ebc.com.br/sites/_tvbrasil/files/imagens-imce/1_-_paralamasechicoscienceberlim971_1_grande.jpg (last modified - as indicated in the news: 22.06.2012) but peviously published via Google
- TV Brasil was founded in 2007 --> pt:Chico Science died in 1997. Gunnex (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
