Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/15
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
File:رويدا مروه-صحافية وناشطة لبنانية حازت على جوائز تكريم دولية في مجال حقوق المرأة وتعتبر صاحبة قلم وفكر مشاكس تجاه م 2013-12-15 04-10.png
[edit]TC screenshot. Not free High Contrast (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Steinsplitter High Contrast (talk) 15:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be a personal attack, especially as this is the uploader's only contribution, was briefly displayed on w:selfishness Paradoctor (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deleted, personal insult/joke image, out of scope, uncat since Sept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope Unused personal image — ♫♫ Leitoxx 
The Police ♪♪ — 16:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, the picture is being used on his Spanish Wikipedia userpage, something that is permitted by policy. küñall (nütramyen) 17:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept - in use at userpage Denniss (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Incorrectly created; a correctly formatted one has been created to replace it. Drdpw (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please do not use {{Delete}} for routine housekeeping. {{Speedy}} uses fewer resources, both human and computer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value Copperchicken (talk) 14:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep Depicts cultural tradition of Halloween costuming. Photo taken in public place. Properly categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)- Keep Deletion nomination appears to be intended as harassment. JesseW (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: THis is and always was a copyright violation, per Ticket#2013121910001961 Courcelles 03:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Thailand
[edit]There is no indication that Thai coins are free for any reason, and there is no section COM:CUR#Thailand.
- File:1 baht Thaïlande Suphannahong tête.jpg
- File:1 baht Thaïlande Suphannahong.jpg
- File:1and2BahtP1080993a.jpg
- File:King 60th ann coins.jpg
- File:One baht Obverse.jpg
- File:One baht other side.jpg
- File:Photo de piece inconnue10.JPG
- File:Thai 1 baht coin.jpg
- File:Thai coins (2009 series).jpg
- File:Thailandia 1 baht.JPG
- File:ร.9.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกการแข่งขันกีฬาเอเชี่ยนเกมส์ ครั้งที่ 5.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกพระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช พระชนมายุครบ 3 รอบ-2.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกพระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช พระชนมายุครบ 3 รอบ-20บาท.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกพระบาทสมเด็จพระปรมินทรมหาภูมิพลอดุลยเดช พระชนมายุครบ 3 รอบ.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกสมเด็จพระนางเจ้าฯ พระบรมราชินีนาถ พระชนมายุครบ 3 รอบ.jpg
- File:เหรียญกษาปณ์ที่ระลึกเสด็จนิวัตพระนคร.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- Op de Duitse Wikipedia wordt een afbeelding 5-Baht-Münze.jpg gebruikt waar kennelijk geen probleem mee is. Is het niet mogelijk datgene waardoor die afbeelding geen probleem vormt, ook voor deze afbeeldingen te doen? Met name de afbeelding 1and2BahtP1080993a.jpg zou ik graag willen behouden. --FredTC (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:5-Baht-Münze.jpg is actually on Commons, not on German Wikipedia. It has the same problem as the other files in this request, so that one should also be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Deletion would constitute lèse majesté. --84.61.176.82 17:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is a non-copyright restriction (and presumably incorrect), so it doesn't affect Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Coins of Thailand
[edit]Coin of unknown age. No evidence that it is free for any reason.
Stefan4 (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 23:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Streisand effect
[edit]In November the WMF passed the Pricasso Amendment, a resolution which states:
Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest
It is well documented that Barbra Streisand was opposed to the publication of these images based upon the publication being an invasion of her privacy. Over the years on Commons I have deleted images of people's houses based upon the same privacy argument, and now that we have the Pricasso Amendment, we are now required to delete these images as well.
The lack of respect of Streisand's privacy is even more exasperated by the inclusion of geographical data on the photos which give the exact location of her private residence.
All people are entitled to privacy, even public figures, and the WMF resolution makes it totally impossible for us to keep these images without this project acting in direct contravention of the well thought out and worded Pricasso Amendment.
russavia (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - Please, this is a w:WP:Featured Picture on three (3) Wikipedias! These are (1) English Wikipedia, (2) Spanish Wikipedia, and (3) Persian Wikipedia. The image is in use on a multitude of pages across many different other language Wikipedias. It should be retained as in-scope. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, being in use and being in scope is no longer relevant since the Pricasso Amendment was passed by the WMF board of trustees. This is the new reality that we on Commons are now forced to contend with. That it means the destruction of Commons is irrelevant. russavia (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hope this was not how the amendment was intended to be applied, because it would end up deleting and censoring Featured Pictures on multiple language Wikipedia sites! -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You will have to, unfortunately, take that up with WMF Board of Trustees. They passed the amendment with the wording I have noted, and as they run the servers we are required to do their bidding. They have made this much clear. russavia (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I still don't think that's reason enough to delete and censor images already established as Featured Picture quality on multiple different language Wikipedias! -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- They are not just running the servers; three of them are selected by the community with more than 70% support. Jee 07:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You will have to, unfortunately, take that up with WMF Board of Trustees. They passed the amendment with the wording I have noted, and as they run the servers we are required to do their bidding. They have made this much clear. russavia (talk) 22:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hope this was not how the amendment was intended to be applied, because it would end up deleting and censoring Featured Pictures on multiple language Wikipedia sites! -- Cirt (talk) 22:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, being in use and being in scope is no longer relevant since the Pricasso Amendment was passed by the WMF board of trustees. This is the new reality that we on Commons are now forced to contend with. That it means the destruction of Commons is irrelevant. russavia (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- russavia, I don't think your COM:POINT violation here is very helpful. darkweasel94 22:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why not, this is the new reality on WMF-hosted projects, and we are required to enact the WMF resolution as written without prejudice. russavia (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This image is still visible, and we have it under the license CC-BY-SA-3.0 here. Please study also the articles: California Coastal Records Project and Streisand effect (court decision). --Alchemist-hp (talk) 22:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how external links are relevant to an internal decision. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I am having a hard time seeing the nexus between a picture of a house and someone's dignity. This seems more like a disruptive DR. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry to have to spell it out to you, but the Pricasso Amendment also includes "respect for personal privacy", not just dignity. I suggest you go back and re-read the nomination in its entirety again. russavia (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually I am certain it is you that misunderstand the legal meaning of personal privacy. It does not apply here. Have read before opening more disruptive DRs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Bad faith nomination. Russavia is just trying to make a point here. --Conti|✉ 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "point" was made here by another editor, all I have done taken the very solid point they have made, and translated it into a deletion request which succinctly spells out why these files need to be deleted. russavia (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm still a bit confused by all the drama and back-and-forth, Conti, what point was Russavia trying to make here? -- Cirt (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The "point" was made here by another editor, all I have done taken the very solid point they have made, and translated it into a deletion request which succinctly spells out why these files need to be deleted. russavia (talk) 23:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Bad faith nomination. Russavia, you can do better than this. Yann (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Re-opened by Russavia. The nomination is not bad faith, but is a result of the rigid application of a resolution with the WMF passed in November. It is not up to us here on Commons to question WMF resolutions, and we are required to abide by their resolutions as written. There is no escaping this, and the DR is being re-opened upon this basis. russavia (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- A small other question: do Barbra Streisand still living in this building? This image is made at 23. September 2002, 13:30:47 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- This news article from November 2013 would indicate that she is still living in the mansion, so her privacy concerns are as valid now as they were 11 years ago. russavia (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- A small other question: do Barbra Streisand still living in this building? This image is made at 23. September 2002, 13:30:47 --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the public info. And you are to be more papal than the pope. Or we can delete all our images with buildings ... this is still nonsense for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Alchemist-hp, this all seems like nonsense to me, as well. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the public info. And you are to be more papal than the pope. Or we can delete all our images with buildings ... this is still nonsense for me. --Alchemist-hp (talk) 23:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, because the Streisand effect is 11 years ago, all information is public anyways, and we don't need more drama here. --A.Savin 00:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, because neither the dignity of the individual nor personal privacy are actually at stake. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep because there do not seem to be any legal violations, especially given the unsuccessful lawsuit against the photographer. Regards, Christoph Braun (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Blatant example of w:WP:WL. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep obviously. If the Foundation wishes to enforce this "Amendment" in specific instances, they can do so themselves, just as they do for DCMA takedowns. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- True but the resolution was never intended to affect files like this. The plaintiff's claim of privacy was found completely without foundation by a US court of law. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks much, Saffron Blaze, for your comments, above, your analysis of the legal case Streisand v. Adelman is most accurate. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Saffron, yeah, I know. That was my off-hand way of saying they almost certainly won't be getting involved :) — Huntster (t @ c) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Overwhelming. Endorse previous speedy keep and would endorse 2nd speedy keep. -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. I dont see any problem with neutrality, verifiability or dignity here. I can't recognise any people in the photo. The owners address is public, and is deemed to be in the public interest to be public. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, John Vandenberg, your analysis is most appreciated! I hope you are doing well, -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- John, hypothetical question, your address is public information, I take a photo of your home, and upload it to Commons with notations that it is your house, and I also include full geolocation data for the property. You then ask to have it deleted based upon the Pricasso Amendment's right to privacy clause. Do we delete it? Or not? And if we do delete it, why is this different to the files in this discussion? russavia (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it's public info why would he care? However, if he were to ask, we wouldn't remove for privacy issues, but we may as a courtesy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Russavia, you are correct that my addresses are on a few public records, however it is still personally identifiable information (PII), so while it is acceptable for it to be stored on some public records, it is a violation of privacy to republish that PII to a different audience unless it is in the public interest. Publishers need to make their own determination on whether something is in the public interest. If someone published my address in a way that I felt was inappropriate and unnecessary, I could try to ask nicely, and I expect that the Wikimedia Commons community would deal with it appropriately, or seek relief from the courts. In the case of Streisand's home, I don't think the publishers of the infamous photo actually included Streisand's name with the photograph of the property - I might be wrong about that. Anyway, the judge confirmed that their decision to publish those images was correct. Before and after many publishers have made that call to publish details about her home. We should be watching out for contributors uploading photos of homes, geotagging them and mentioning whose home it is. Every time that happens, the community needs to determine whether linking those pieces of information together is appropriate. So, this nomination is A Good Thing, and if you know of any other similar cases, I encourage you to initiate a community discussion about those also (or send requests to the Commons oversighters if a community discussion would cause additional distress to the subject. Lets have these discussions. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Question I see a repeated attempt from one user to harass the Board, using a nickname to the Resolution:Media about living people. Is it acceptable here; or that particular user is exempted from all rules? Jee 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could give some background, Jkadavoor, to what you are referring, for users who may not have been following all this drama as actively? -- Cirt (talk) 05:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Pricasso Amendment" by russavia. Jee 05:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep "Taking human dignity and respect for personal privacy into account when adding or removing information and/or media, especially in articles or images of ephemeral or marginal interest" is irrelevant; it's not private anymore. We're not talking something that's theoretically public information; we're talking about something that's public information and clearly widely distributed. Nor is this something that could be said to be inherently private, like a sex tape or something. I could see the argument were we the first place for them to be uploaded, but not now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Respect for personal privacy does not to me mean that the details need to be private, just that the person would prefer them to be. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I think this image is a valid one for the community to discuss wrt privacy. So it isn't outrageous for someone to nominate it for discussion. It is, of course, completely COM:POINTy for Russavia to do so at this time. Per Saffron, the privacy concerns of this image have been discussed by greater minds than ours and found wanting. -- Colin (talk) 08:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Pretty clear consensus. Please do not reopen this DR before 3 months as per recent discussion. Yann (talk) 09:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Low res personal pic, no evident in scope usefulness. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Érico Wouters msg 01:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Personal pic with no evidence in scope usefulness; uncat since Sept. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Personal pic with no evidence in scope usefulness; uncat since Oct. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe FOP in Portugal covers this, this election poster is not permanently installed in a public space. Darwin Ahoy! 00:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from Zimbio. Érico Wouters msg 01:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from Goal. Érico Wouters msg 01:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Uploader is not copyright holder (the artist, Sarah Morris) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
uploader is not copyright holder (the artist, Sarah Morris) Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyvio from Star Flow Entertainment. Érico Wouters msg 01:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 01:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Obviously not the uploader's own work; does any PD license fit? High Contrast (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Very likely false authorship claims High Contrast (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Very likely false authorship claims High Contrast (talk) 02:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: no educational value High Contrast (talk) 02:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Derivative of photograph of unknown origin and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Esta mal echo Jhon Tyrone (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio to me. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:53, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Personal pic with no evidence in scope usefulness; uncat since Oct. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope: Commons is no private photo album High Contrast (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
File:I am Amritpal singh- I am born 8th June 1991- Harbhajan singh my father- -he do a government job in water supply- -I am graduate in b-a- - 2013-12-13 06-55.jpg
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Official schoollogo GrapedApe (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Goldy the factor is an independent artist from dallas texas-DON'T stop productions cofounder- 2013-12-11 20-56.jpeg
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, this picture is taken from inside the adjacent Auto- und Technik-Museum Sinsheim which charges for admission and is therefore not public accessible meaning that this image is not covered by German FOP. LGA talkedits 02:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This image was originally created by a sockpuppet at Wikipedia. Its safer to delete in this case. Leoboudv (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I’m afraid this is an older version of https://www.metrodemedellin.gov.co/images/stories/2012_img/mapa-esquematico_abril2013_baja.jpg — which is not licensed in any suitable way for Commons. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
file described as fictious CoA + still not in use one year after upload => out of scope 80.215.192.66 03:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This appears to be a publicity photo, questionable whether uploader was the photographer or is copyright owner of image Ebyabe (talk) 04:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal image. Out of the scope. GZWDer (talk) 04:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
commons are not facebook, some private picture, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa LGA talkedits 07:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place. Arial images are not included and therefore this is not covered by German FOP. LGA talkedits 07:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Unuseful draw of italian TG1 logo Marco 08:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted sculpture. Eleassar (t/p) 08:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Fantasy licence. In fact © Copyright 2013 FRHI. All rights reserved. 91.66.153.214 10:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Most probably not own work, professional portrait, small size, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 10:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Not own work. This image looks like a photography taken by a professionnal. This picture can be found at the bottom of this page [1] in the photo gallery — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shev123 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-12T22:52:39 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyvio : concept art — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gdgourou (talk • contribs) 2013-12-13T09:32:36 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Wrong license, probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 11:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably wrong license. This map is credited to Guilbert Gates (see also [2]). Yann (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused. 레비Revi 11:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: bad quality -svolks (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
c'est moi ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Radhwen Bannour (talk • contribs) 2013-12-14T05:38:53 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
uploaded a version with better quality Albatalad (talk) 11:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request: bad quality -svolks (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
false copiright, not own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Δαβίδ (talk • contribs) 2013-12-13T16:43:05 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
translate to "Category:Posters under Pinochet" or something like that (it was not a gobernment, but a dictatorship) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Farisori (talk • contribs) 2013-12-14T22:20:00 (UTC)
Kept: As a matter of fact, it was a government. Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg Smooth_O (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows logo - 2006.svg Smooth_O (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. File from a deleted Article. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 12:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
File source specifies on site HubbleSite, but I cannot find this file there [3] St1995 13:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyright violation: http://www.forbes.com/sites/johngaudiosi/2012/08/10/curse-league-of-legends-blogger-dhanish-semar-outlines-new-business-opportunities-in-esports/ — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 13:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
private family picture 91.66.153.214 15:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete blurry poor quality personal snapshot with no evidence of compensating importance or relevance. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per out of scope. Possible copyright — ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 15:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Es liegt definitiv keine Urheberrechtsverletzung vor! --Thomas24Stuttgart (talk) 15:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Looks like promo photo. Could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on saying it is "promo" and "could be found on other web sites" too, since I received it from here to upload it here.Grq2top (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Please file an OTRS permission, though the photo of an unnotable persone is likely to be deleted as out-of-scope anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I accept. TuanUt (talk) 06:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 16:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
copyright? Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 16:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope for a PDF file (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats): raw text with self-biographical info. Aleator (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
encyclopedic value? Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 16:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope for a PDF file (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats): empty (Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File nr.7: File is empty). Aleator (talk) 16:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope for a PDF file (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats): raw text with self-biographical info. Aleator (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope for a PDF file (Commons:Project_scope#PDF_and_DjVu_formats): raw text with self-biographical info. Aleator (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#File nr.7: File is empty. Aleator (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
probably private picture, no useful description, not used Avron (talk) 17:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
private picture, not used Avron (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, no useful description, not used Avron (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
perosonal photo, not used Avron (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 17:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Das Foto wurde von mir versehentlich doppelt hochgeladen, bitte löschen - danke! Kalkalpen77 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
personal photo, not used, bad quality Avron (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal images.
Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation from Pinterest. Érico Wouters msg 19:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
not own work — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fetx2002 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T17:29:50 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 19:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Depicted statue is likely a recent work and thereby still copyrighted. Regrettably, Sri Lanka kas no freedom-of-panorama exemption. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also: File:Felix Dias Bandaranaike statue.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: both, per absence of FoP Ymblanter (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeachieBoy415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:54:55 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:46:40 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:54:16 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:50:36 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:52:06 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:51:44 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:48:18 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. See ja:Rhenikey. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:52:32 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Deletion request for my upload. HappyHubie415 (talk) 03:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; see es:Samuel Busutil Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Low quality, not of use, out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:47:43 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused, out of COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:48:50 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:50:58 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:51:21 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:52:59 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:50:13 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:45:45 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of the project scope: this collage is not used on any Wikimedia project nor on Commons. This private "art" is as such not interesting for educational purposes. Commons does not host private political "art projects" 188.104.105.236 21:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Own Image Delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyHubie415 (talk • contribs) 2013-12-15T03:47:10 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Glitch in upload script (this is certainly not a panorama of a river!) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Glitch in upload script (this is certainly not a panorama of a river!) Andrew Gray (talk) 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Historic marker is copyrighted, as the date on it is 1994. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
a picture of another one picture Odessey (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted historical marker. Date says 2002. No freedom of panorama for this in the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Copyrighted historical marker. Date says 2005. No freedom of panorama for this in the U.S. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination I just realized this was created by the Florida government and is thus PD. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Ymblanter (talk) 10:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded it, but the image have edition mistakes. Paulusburg (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Fixed most problems... AnonMoos (talk) 23:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: please feel to renominate if there are any problems left Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
no link to flickr, person on Image should be the photographer - don't think so Marcus Cyron (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded it. This file have edtion mistakes, Please, delete it Paulusburg (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded it. file with edition mistakes. Please, delete it Paulusburg (talk) 22:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The uploader of this image was banned on Wikicommons for block evasions and sockpuppetry. It may be safer to delete this image as there is no proof this image dates to 1930 secondly. Leoboudv (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment:This uploader also uploaded less than 10 images to Commons. I count 6 only. --Leoboudv (talk) 00:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)- Delete For PD-old it is unsufficient that the image (postcard?) dates from 1930. Author may be known and then it is life+70. Kind regards, Lymantria (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete There is no proof that this is an anonymous work so pd-old doesn't apply. Natuur12 (talk) 10:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence of permission Ymblanter (talk) 10:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Alan Bennett 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Andy Frampton 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: I think the pose, hair style, and quality (as selfies go), makes this worth keeping. (In the process, I found out that our categorization on hair deying is very defficient.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: If we are going to keep self portraits, they must be top quality -- this is badly washed out. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Barry Fuller 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Was deleted from en.wikipedia for copyright issues. A copy was apparently made from en.wikipedia to bg.wikipedia and it was then copied to commons. It appears to be a photograph taken some time ago, and appears on his Nobel biography, and may be their copyright.
An alternative (albeit more recent) photograph of Prof. Josephson is available courtesy of the Cavendish Lab.
On the other hand, w:en:Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) is probably aware of his Wikipedia biography and hasn't complained about it. I will alert Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) is somewhat active as w:en:user:Brian Josephson and may be able to clarify. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless some actual source and legitimate evidence that the image is free licensed can be provided. Photo was previously uploaded to en:W by en:User:BehnamFarid who is "retired" from contributing. Attributing "authorship" to bg:Потребител:PetaRZ appears completely bogus. It'd be great if the Brian Josephson can be contacted, but may not be helpful unless they are the copyright holder of this particular photo. (Asking if they can provide a free licensed alternative image might be worth a try.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I hereby confirm that this picture was taken by the Cavendish laboratory, and is not the property of the Nobel Foundation. I believe the laboratory would on request supply permission to use it, as they have done with the other photograph on the page. ---Brian Josephson (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
This DR is invalid, because nominator failed to tag the file and to notify the uploader. (please use the 'nominate for deletion' link from the tools menu next time). I have tagged the file as 'no permission'. Permission can be sent to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Needless duplication of File:Chosuke01.jpg in what matters on the photo, plus also needless spam. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal unused photo. RE RILLKE Questions? 15:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 16:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
as poster, out of scope, not used Motopark (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
This building hes been created by Georges-Henri Pingusson (1894-1978), an architect who died less than 70 years ago. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this picture can't be considered as free and should be deleted. Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's a pity, but what else can be done… Hopefully, when freedom of panorama once gets finally institutionalized in France, there will still be a way to recognize and restore all the pictures like this, otherwise Wikimedia Commons is going to lose a lot of (then) historical imagery. But yes, please delete this one now, because although perhaps the only significant building in that village, it is currently against the French law to show it anywhere. Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Harry Pell 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-piercing jewelry depicted for showing a piercing. See talk page, please. 2003:71:CE2D:B100:505B:5017:D17B:7EA7 13:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - or we could just rename the file. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep This issue is entirely up to Wikimedia projects' use -- there is no problem with Commons policy in keeping the image. If you have a problem with how the image is described on a project, take it up on that project. -Pete F (talk) 09:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Jim Fenlon 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: It is a good addition for both Category:Denim shirts and Category:Denim skirts. -- Tuválkin ✉ 00:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal images.
- File:Lil'Ch lil'ch.jpg
- File:ILil'Ch lil'ch.jpg
- File:Lil'Ch lil'ch Good For you.jpg
- File:Lilch dance.jpg
- File:Lil'ch...jpg
- File:Lilch.jpg
- File:Lil'ch.jpg
- File:Lilch1.jpg
- File:Lilch58.jpg
- File:Lilch8.jpg
- File:Lilch65.jpg
- File:Lilch (2).jpg
- File:LilCh.jpg
- File:Lilch (3).jpg
- File:Lilchn.jpg
Érico Wouters msg 19:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
JPG version uploaded at File:Luke Moore 07-09-2013 1.jpg. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:54, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal images.
- File:MATTY 15.jpg
- File:MATTY 10.jpg
- File:MATTY 12.jpg
- File:MATTY 6.jpg
- File:MATTY 7.jpg
- File:MATTY 4.jpg
- File:MATTY 5.jpg
- File:MATTY 3.jpg
- File:MATTY 1.jpg
Érico Wouters msg 02:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:13, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, no educational value Copperchicken (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Depicts cultural tradition of Mardi Gras costuming in the Marigny section of New Orleans. Photo taken in public place. Properly categorized. -- Infrogmation (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep unless I'm missing something about what Copperchicken is saying. This seems to be a legitimate example of Mardi Gras costumes, that is no more a "personal photo" than any of thousands of photos we have of the subject between Category:Mardi Gras on Frenchmen Street and a huge set of categories like it. (Or is this a claim that these kinds of photos are not useful in general? Mardi Gras is a real thing — not something some Commons users invented so they could upload their own uneducational works about it.) --Closeapple (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep} -- suggest snow close. JesseW (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Seems a very legitimate unpersonal picture with possible uses.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Problematic file (No FOP in France) 91.66.153.214 10:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC) oops, according to fr:Psyckoze this photo is taken in Philadedelphia 91.66.153.214 10:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in the United States.. Also, the image is credited to Liu Szumskyj, with no evidence of permission. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
the file it so blurred and additionally distorted by a huge watermark beyond repair and therefore not useful for any purpose Andy king50 (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete There is no evidence of permission from the photographer of this 3d-object. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
has 2 watermarks, is blurry, and displays text that implies not-free license Jaredzimmerman (WMF) (talk) 10:07, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the image depicts the unveiling of a monument in 1962. A subject can't be de minimis to its own unveiling. Eleassar (t/p) 08:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Most of the monument is cropped out. The rest can be de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The entire background is the monument, and the image depicts putting a wreath to it. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cropped it out even further so it should be OK. --Sporti (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.176.82 11:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep for me it's an obvious De Minimis case, we can see a very general overview of Paris, a cityscape (Eiffel Tower, Montparnasse tower and La Défense buildings are not very close to each other, it's a panorama). Jeriby (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I am comfortable with the original version on the basis of its being a panorama. I am not comfortable with the cropped version, so I have removed it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}; orphaned/replaced by File:Perfluorobutylamine Structure V.1.svg. Leyo 20:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Agree -- "Perfluorobutylamine Structure V.1.svg" is much better; "Perfluorotributylamine.jpg" is pointless now. Bob Saint Clar (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted sculpture in the background. Eleassar (t/p) 09:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cropped out top of the monument, the rest partly blocked in the background so de minimis. --Sporti (talk) 13:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revision deleted. INeverCry 17:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the monument is in the background, but not de minimis, because it is the sculpture of Rudolf Maister, the anniversary of which was celebrated. Eleassar (t/p) 08:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have cropped out the monument. --Sporti (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revision deleted. INeverCry 17:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted bust. Eleassar (t/p) 08:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have blurred the bust. --Sporti (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, but unfortunately it is still clearly recognisable. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You can see it is a bust with glasses, but that is about it. --Sporti (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is significantly more recognisable than e.g. a silhouette that was deemed a copyright violation.[4][5] --Eleassar (t/p) 13:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Whatever. --Sporti (talk) 13:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- A silhouette shows the outlines, here you can't see the outlines clearly. If this method is good enough to blur people on the TV, I don't know why you are trying to make such a case out of nothing here. --Sporti (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't think that pixelization is the wrong approach, but here it has not been intensive enough. The work is still easily recognisable, even at high resolution, but definitely at the lower one. You may compare the image e.g. to examples at en:Pixelization. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- How about now? --Sporti (talk) 14:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- For me, it is now ok. The bosom should probably be blurred too. Thanks. --Eleassar (t/p) 23:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
File:Rowaida Mroue-Young lebanese human rights activist born on the 20th of august 1986 in hadatha village in south lebanon-Very well known for her activism in the western sahara conflict, south yemen conflict, and 2013-12-15 04-07.jpg
[edit]Likely not within the project scope High Contrast (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, this selfportrait ? is in scope. But it is probably stolen from her Facebook site https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=713935028619715&set=a.404002706279617.101631.352431478103407&type=1&theater 91.66.153.214 10:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Totally unused, and we're not Photobucket. The nominator's never made any contributions except uploading self-portraits and adding them to his userpage, but this one never even got added to the userpage. Also adding File:Sannti068.jpg, by the same uploader, and it too hasn't even appeared on his userpage. Nyttend (talk) 14:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal images.
- File:GaleraBabaçu.jpg
- File:BrunoQuadra.jpg
- File:AlgunsJogadores.jpg
- File:Amigos Corinthianos e Babaçuense.jpg
- File:BAbAçu.jpg
- File:Jogadores Babaçu 01.jpg
- File:Jogadores Babaçu 02.jpg
Érico Wouters msg 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted bust. Eleassar (t/p) 09:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have blurred the bust. --Sporti (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It is still clearly recognisable. --Eleassar (t/p) 13:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Blurred again. --Sporti (talk) 07:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Old revisions deleted. INeverCry 17:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Source is http://forums.france2.fr/sport/cyclisme/Le-Tour-de-France/commentateurs-televisions-geographie-sujet_24734_1.htm Yann (talk) 10:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep If you give a look of the date, the file has been upload on 10 June 2010 on Flickr and licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. The post on forums.france2.fr has been done on 13-07-2011, i.e. one year later.
- Sorry, but this Flickr stream is full of copyright violation. I don't think it is reliable at all. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files from User: Sklyarsveta contributions
[edit]Sklyarsveta uploaded to Commons a lot of files with Self-published license, but this artworks have another authors:
The author of this work is Fedir Panko. He died in 2007 and his works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this work is Hanna Sobachko. She died in 1965 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this work is Marfa Tymchenko. She died in 2009 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this works is Nadiya Bilokin. She died in 1981 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this work is Paraska Pavlenko. She died in 1983 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this works is Paraska Vlasenko. She died in 1960 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this works is Tetyana Pata. She died in 1976 and her works is not in Public Domain.
The author of this works is Vira Pavlenko. She died in 1991 and her works is not in Public Domain.
* File:Ukrainian folk art.jpg
This file also unlikely to be own work of uploader, because it has 1913 as year of creation.
- It can be licensed with {{PD-RusEmpire}} license --Навка (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Cibulivka.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Dobrovodi1.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Dobrovodi2.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Kindijka.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Mishurin Rig.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Petrikivka.jpg
- File:Ukrainian national house selo Skazinci.jpg
This are postcards with works of modern Ukrainian painter Zinaida Vasina. We have no permission to use her works.--Навка (talk) 20:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyright violations Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:BayArena
[edit]FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP.
- File:Bay Arena Leverkusen 001.jpg
- File:BayArena Panorama.jpg
- File:BayArena-VIP Logen.jpg
- File:GERRSAwiki1.jpg
LGA talkedits 02:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The visible architectur is rather functional and either marginal too or doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed. --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: THe only ToO architecture case in the EU set a very low standard -- a manufactured house that was extremely simple was held to not have a copyright. There is no evidence that the ToO for architecture is more than very minimal anywhere. The roof of these buildings is certainly not uncreative. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:Ellis Park Stadium before start of Brazil & North Korea match at World Cup 2010-06-15 1.jpg
- File:Ellis Park Stadium before start of Brazil & North Korea match at World Cup 2010-06-15 2.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Brazil North Korea 1.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Brazil North Korea 11.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Brazil North Korea 4.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I deleted the first two not for copyright, but because they are simply useless images. The remaining three don;t show any architecture -- all we see are field and spectators. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Busan Asiad Main Stadium
[edit]The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L
- File:Busanasiasutadium.jpg
- File:Busanasiasutadium1.JPG
- File:Busanasiasutadium1.jpg
- File:Busanasiasutadium2.JPG
- File:Busanasiasutadium3.JPG
LGA talkedits 07:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Daegu Stadium
[edit]The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L
- File:Daegu Stadium 2011.jpg
- File:Daegu Stadium satellite view.png
- File:DaeguStadium.jpg
- File:Zita Ajkler at 2003.Universiade.jpg
LGA talkedits 08:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Daegu Stadium
[edit]The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L
LGA talkedits 06:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 18:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Daejeon World Cup Stadium
[edit]The FOP in South Korea is limited only to non-commercial uses and is not compatible with COM:L
- File:Daejeon World Cup Stadium from outside.jpg
- File:Daejeon World Cup Stadium inside.jpg
- File:Daejeon World Cup Stadium.jpg
- File:Daejeon Worldcup Stadium.jpg
- File:DaejeonWC.jpg
LGA talkedits 08:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Given the legal precedent, my inability to find a legal basis which would provide an exception for these images, and Wikimedia Commons images being allowed commercial use, I will not oppose the deletion of File:Daejeon World Cup Stadium from outside.jpg. Releasing this and the others to Wikipedia with a non-commercial license (by their respective authors) seems to be the reasonable alternative. YooChung (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the deletion request is nonsense. FOP it only essential by Works of Art. No Work of Art, no problem whe havent FOP in South Korea.--Bobo11 (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are copyrightable, these images all show architectural elements of the stadium, to release with a free licence you need the consent of the architect. LGA talkedits 07:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Note that WP is itself a commercial use, as is Commons, because both solicit money from the public. There are actually almost no non-commercial uses -- some personal web sites (but not any that carry advertising or implicitly advertise their owner's services) and use in classrooms of schools that do not charge tuition. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hattigny
[edit]This buiding has been designed by Jean de Gastines (b. 1957) who is still alive. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, these pictures can't be considered as free and they should be deleted.
- File:Center Parcs - Hattigny, France.jpg
- File:Center Parcs 1 - Hattigny, France.jpg
- File:Center Parcs 2 - Hattigny, France.jpg
- File:Center Parcs 3 - Hattigny, France.jpg
- File:Center Parcs 4 - Hattigny, France.jpg
Pymouss Let’s talk - 13:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment the problem is not FOP for these files, they look like architect 3D pictures that we can see about an architectural project not yet built. May be more a copyvio problem than a FOP one. Jeriby (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I think these are actual buildings. FOur of the images come from web pages belonging to the glass manufacturer, so are copyvios. The last is also probably a copyvio, but in any even the image infringes on the Architect's copyright. Even if Jeriby is correct, and these are well done models, the images still infringe. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium
[edit]Works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium.jpg
- File:Nelson Mandela Stadium in Port Elizabeth.jpg
- File:Nelsonmandelabaystadium.jpg
- File:Nelsonmandelabaystadium2.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- About File:Nelson Mandela Stadium in Port Elizabeth.jpg: Keep, the file has already been kept during a previous DR (here), and I still think the stadium is De Minimis in a general overview, a cityscape. Jeriby (talk) 06:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Kept one per Jeriby . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rhein-Neckar-Arena
[edit]FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP. Nor are pictures taken from aircraft.
- File:2010-06-06 Rhein-Neckar-Arena Luftbild.jpg
- File:2011-08-27 Hoffenheim3 (6093607634).jpg
- File:2011-08-27 Hoffenheim5 (6093609566).jpg
- File:Hoffenheimer-Fans-Rhein-Neckar-Arena.jpg
- File:Rhein Neckar Arena Sinsheim.jpg
LGA talkedits 02:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The visible architectur is rather functional and either marginal too or doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed.
- Please stop your round kick against each and every stadium and check if there is actually any copyright violated bevor your nominate pictures here! --Martin Kraft (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: The only EU case law on architectural ToO that anyone has been able to cite on Commons sets a very low standard -- a very simple manufactured house was held not to have a copyright. These structures are many times more complex. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You can delete these files, I do not insist on their keeping. But why You keep e.g. File:Phonesex.gif
or
? --Jugydmort (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
As of this request, these are personal images that are unused on any project, and thus fall out of COM:SCOPE
- File:Me - 1993.jpg
- File:Kaka - my bike.jpg
- File:Kakasab-new.jpg
- File:Jamnagarnojam1.jpg
- File:Nilesh-new.jpg
- File:Jamnagar123.jpg
- File:Headder image.png
- File:Facebook-profile.jpg
- File:Kakasab.jpg
- File:My gujarati Signature.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What is this image? Unclear purpose, likely falls outside COM:SCOPE.
- File:Shirin Gazz 2013-12-14 23-51.jpg
- File:Shirin Gazz ( Persian Nougat )-Shirin Tamarisk 2013-12-14 23-49.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 12:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marvex 2000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like collection of advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Elyqxxx3.jpg
- File:Elyqxxx2.jpg
- File:Elyqxxx.jpg
- File:InverterQBell.jpg
- File:Ibox.jpg
- File:Irack.jpg
- File:Ipackxxx2.jpg
- File:Ipackxxx.jpg
- File:Sunglasxxx.jpg
- File:Airomt.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marvex 2000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, uncategorized diagrams of no apparent educational utility. Seems promotional based on user's other upload/s.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ms. Anusha Rahman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by STARFOOD- CZECH (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope - promotion of non-notable company
INeverCry 17:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 13:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Appears to be have been uploaded for an article which was deleted on ru.wiki.
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 21:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
out of scope. Unused personal image. Promotion
- File:Zilcko..13.jpg
- File:Zilcko.13.JPG
- File:Zilcko13.JPG
- File:Lzi.jpg
- File:Zlko.jpg
- File:Zlk.jpg
- File:Ko.JPG
- File:Z.JPG
- File:Zi.jpg
- File:Zicko1.JPG
- File:3174902363 1 3 r4Er4hVq.jpg
- File:600x600.jpg
- File:3164983592 1 2 Q1PFQgEN.jpg
- File:Zilcko.JPG
- File:Zilcko.jpg
— ♫♫ Leitoxx The Police ♪♪ — 18:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: A.Savin 12:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out-of-scope and/or low quality selfies, unused for personal purposes. (Yes, some are photos of musical activity, but the quality really isn't good enough to warrant keeping in the face of countless better alternatives).
User has *already* had a bunch of images deleted before uploading these ones, so maybe a block should be considered?
- File:Zilcko -.jpg
- File:Zilcko1.jpg
- File:ZilckoCIMG2945.JPG
- File:Zilcko zi562386.jpg
- File:Zilcko lu25865963.jpg
- File:Zilcko77265384.jpg
- File:Zilcko43569825.jpg
- File:Zilcko122534752.jpg
- File:Zilcko34725357.jpg
- File:Zilcko34639056.jpg
- File:Alpha.Copie de majambazi.jpg
- File:ZilckoCIMG0099.JPG
- File:ZilckoCIMG0096.JPG
Ubcule (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictures of fat women by User:ParentingPatch
[edit]- File:Obese Woman Eating at Smashburger.JPG
- File:Obese Woman on Brick Wall.JPG
- File:Obese Woman at Water Park.JPG
- File:Obese Woman at Menards.jpg
Uploader has a serious obsession with fat females. Making reference to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Obese woman eating at Moe's.jpg (concerning yet another fat woman picture by ParentingPatch; result was delete), I question whether the plus-sized models gave consent or not. Subjects of the images may also feel hurt and these files can be construed as personal attacks. Moreover, they serve not much educational purpose, except to illustrate how fat ladies look like. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 12:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Obesity is in scope to the extent any other topic with Wikipedia articles is, but I see that these rather poor quality snapshots add anything to the understanding of the topic; we already have a good number of superior illustrations in relevant categories. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: It shows palmar creases in context. Maybe the whole could be trimmed along the upper edge for better composition. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Érico Wouters msg 02:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Interesting self portrait. We dont need to delete all selfies, after all. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
No description or categories, so it is not clear this image is useful for anything. In any case, we will need a license from the photographer of the B&W image and possibly from the artist who did the work in pink -- I don't think the pink is over the ToO, but others may disagree. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, i got a permission from the artist of the album to use the picture cover, and he owns fully the copyrights of his album cover, and he got a full permissions for using this picture, also the b&w and also the red one.
regards
- Dan Amir — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.230.89.139 (talk) 12:34, December 15, 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - item is in use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete unless OTRS permission is received. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. INeverCry 19:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Redundant, inferior to File:Tennessee sen 2012.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottSunday (talk • contribs) 2013-12-12T05:48:45 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this in scope -- not valid category or description. In any case, obviously not "own work" as claimed -- will require a license from the person or organization owning the copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Jim, its a musician picture. teach me how to categorize it and ill do it, i got a full permission by the artist and the photographer to use it.
regards Dan Amir israel — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.230.89.139 (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Read COM:Cat for information on categories. Try to use the most specific category or categories possible -- Category:Music isn't helpful.
- As for the license, please have the photographer provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - item is in use. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The file name tells that the image was "taken from his debut album" so COM:OTRS is needed. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I happened to see this discussion, I explained in the He:wiki the uploader what he is required to do. The copyright holder sent an OTRS permission. I added it to the file. I think you can close this deletion request. Thanks. Hanay (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS. INeverCry 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
COM:FOP#France. 84.61.176.82 13:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the deletion request is nonsense. FOP it only essential by Works of Art. No Work of Art, no problem whe havent FOP in France. --Bobo11 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Works of architecture are copyrightable, to release with a free licence you need the consent of the architect. LGA talkedits 07:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Duplicated (File:Delanteros-ISRP.jpg), not identical, but with erratum. Aleator (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Possibly taken from http://www.tmg.com.vn . Looks like a promotional picture as well. Same for File:Tracing_paper_for_sketching.jpg DieBuche (talk) 20:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
(Some) files uploaded by Baskoro F19 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two images are violation of CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence agreement. One image (Ngurah Rai Airport) is my own work uploaded with CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence at Panoramio under BxHxTxCx user name, and one image is a Tropenmuseum picture, all claimed as his own work. Two more images (both Mandala Tiger aircraft picture) are possibly copyright violation (illegally taken from Skyscrapercity forum) and 5 more is non-free logo.
- File:New Logo Sriwijaya Air.jpg
- File:Batik Air Logo.jpg
- File:Malido Air Logo.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia new logo1.jpg
- File:Tigerair Mandala @Terminal 3CKG.jpg
- File:Tigerair Mandala @Terminal 3CKG2.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia new logo.jpg
- File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Senapelan in 1825 Tmnr 89000788.jpg
- File:Ngurah Rai International Airport New Terminal Panorama.jpg
Sabung.hamster (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Baskoro F19 (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying around 80 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different Panoramio-/Flickr-accounts, planespotters.net, airliners.net, skyscrapercity.com, blogs etc., details at User talk:Baskoro F19) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user (already blocked in 08.2013 for 1 week) uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Usually the uploader cropped the files to hide existing watermarks of the real photographers and/or removed the watermarks by photoshopping. All uploads mostly related to planes of Garuda Indonesia and other airlines in Asia.
Info:Uploader blocked at enwiki indefinitely = sock of en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thoriq Azka Rahmat/Archive.
- File:All aircrafts parking @PKU in 2010.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPL) parking @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPN) landing @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPQ) taxiing @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPP) take off @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPH) arrive @AMS.jpg
- File:McDonnell Douglas MD-11 Garuda Indonesia taxiing @LGW.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 747-400 taxiing @LGW.jpg
- File:Garuda-Indonesia Airways Boeing 747-200 (PK-GSB) @LGW.jpg
- File:Garuda-Indonesia Airways Boeing 747-200 (PK-GSC) @LGW.jpg
- File:GA (PK-GIE)3 @NRT.jpg
- File:GA (PK-GIC)3 @NRT.jpg
- File:GA (PK-GIE)2 @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER(PK-GIC) @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER(PK-GIE)2 @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia logo SkyTeam.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 @NGO.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 landing @NGO.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 taxiing @NGO.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 @NGO2.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPD) @SIN.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPK) @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPP) @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 (PK-GPD) @AMS.jpg
- File:Lion Air Boeing 737-900ER (PK-LFF) take off @SIN.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 PK-GPA landing @NRT.jpg
- File:The Two Airbus's of Garuda Indonesia @NRT.jpg
- File:Boeing 777-300ER Garuda Indonesia PK-GIC anding @NRT.jpg
- File:Boeing 777-300ER Garuda Indonesia PK-GIA Landing @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 landing @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 take off @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 take off to DPS from NRT.jpg
- File:Wings Air ATR 72-600 landing @SUB.jpg
- File:Firefly ATR 72-500 take off @KNO.jpg
- File:JetStar Airways (Valueair) Airbus A320-200 landing @KNO.jpg
- File:SilkAir Airbus A319-100 taxiing @KNO.jpg
- File:Malaysia Airlines Boeing 737-800 landing @KNO.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 737-800 landing @KNO.jpg
- File:Mihin Lanka Airbus A321-200 take off @KNO.jpg
- File:Lion Air Boeing 737-800 landing @KNO.jpg
- File:China Airlines Airbus A340-300 taxiing @CGK1.jpg
- File:Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-300.jpg
- File:Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-500 on take off.jpg
- File:Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-800.jpg
- File:Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-400.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER on taxiing @HKG.jpg
- File:Boeing 777-300ER Garuda Indonesia ready for take off @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 landing @HKG.jpg
- File:Boeing 777-300ER Garuda Indonesia(PK-GID) @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER(PK-GIE) @ICN.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER(PK-GIE) @NRT.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnelld Douglas DC-10 landing @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnelld Douglas DC-10 @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnelld Douglas DC-10 on taxiing @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnelld Douglas MD-11 @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A300B4-200FF landing @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 747-200 landing @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 747-200 landing @HKG3.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 747-200 landing @HKG2.jpg
- File:SSK II International Airport logo 2014.jpg
- File:SSKII New Terminal Building.jpg
- File:Lion Air Boeing 737-900ERs @CGK.jpg
- File:Pelita Air Service Fokker 100 @DUM.jpg
- File:Pinang Kampai Airport Terminal.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER Take Off @SIN.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Bombardier CJR 1000 landing @KNO.jpg
- File:Protologi Genesis Insident Lion air Flight 386 at Sultan Syarif Kasim II Airport.jpg
- File:Lion Air Boeing 737-200(PK-LID).jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 @CAN.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia McDonnell Douglas DC-10-30 @CAN2.jpg
- File:EVA Air Airbus A330-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 take off @CGK.jpg
- File:Mihin Lanka Airbus A321-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Royal Brunei Airlines Airbus A320-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Vietnam Airlines Airbus A321-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Malaysia Airlines Boeing 737-800 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Qatar Airways Airbus A330-300 taxiing @CGK.jpg
- File:Cathay Pacific Boeing 747-400 Take off @CGK.jpg
- File:Etihad Airways Boeing 777-300ER take off @CGK.jpg --> copyvio (cropped) via http://www.airliners.net/photo/Etihad-Airways/Boeing-777-3FX-ER/2087407/L/ (2012, by Ariodilah Virgantara) = http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/7/0/4/2087407.jpg
- File:Philippine Airlines Airbus A319-100 take off @CGK.jpg --> copyvio (cropped) via http://www.airliners.net/photo/Philippine-Airlines/Airbus-A319-112/2354423/L/ (02.12.2013, by Hendra Barnes) = http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/photos/3/2/4/2354423.jpg
- File:KLM-Royal Dust Airlines Boeing 777-300 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-200ER take off @CGK.jpg
- File:Emirates Boeing 777-300ER landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Thai Airways Airbus A330-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Saudi Arabian Airlines(SAUDIA) Boeing 777-300ER take off @CGK.jpg
- File:All Nippon Airways(Air Japan) Boeing 767-300ER landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER take off @CGK.jpg
- File:JAL(Japan Air Lines) Boeing 777-300ER landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Jeststar Airbus A320-200 landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Tansaero Airlines Boeing 767-200 landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Batik Air Boeing 737-900ER landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Sriwijaya Air Boeing 737-800 landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Virgin Australia Boeing 737-800 @DPS.jpg
- File:Qatar Airways Airbus A330-300(Asian Games Qatar Livery) landing @DPS.jpg
- File:EVA Air Airbus A330-300(Hello Kitty Livery) @DPS.jpg
- File:EVA Air Airbus A330-200 @DPS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-300 taxiing @DPS.jpg
- File:Thai Airways Boeing 777-300ER landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Thai Airways Boeing 777-200ER landing @DPS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 Crash in Fukuoka.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 @AMS(PK-GPH).jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 take off @HKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A330-200 take off @HKG2.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing777-300ER landing @NRT(2).jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing747-400 @CGK.jpg
- File:Thai International Airways Boeing 777-200ER @CGK.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia @Terminal 2E and 2F.jpg
- File:Cahtay Pacific Airbus A340-300 take off @CGK.jpg
- File:JAL Boeing 777-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:FedEx Airbus A310-300 take off @CGK.jpg
- File:Kuwait Airways Airbus A340-300 landing@ CGK.jpg
- File:SSKII Airport Logo.jpg
- File:Qatar Airways Airbus A330-200 landing @CGK.jpg
- File:All Nippon Airways Boeing 767-300ER landing @CGK.jpg
- File:Singapore Airlines(Star Aliance) Boeing 777-300 @Soekarno-Hatta International Airport.jpg
- File:Singapore Airlines Boeing 777-200@Soekarno Hatta International Airport.jpg
- File:Japan Airlines(JAL) at Soekarno Hatta International Airport3.jpg
- File:Japan Airlines(JAL) at Soekarno Hatta International Airport2.jpg
- File:Japan Airlines(JAL) at Soekarno Hatta International Airport.jpg
- File:Kuala Namu International Airport Terminal.jpg
- File:Douglas DC-8 of Garuda Indonesia (KLM) @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Douglas DC-8 @PER.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Airbus A320-200(PK-GPK)on taxing @AMS.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER(PK-GIA)landing @NRT.jpg
- File:Directions From Ngurah Rai Airport(DPS).jpg
- File:Sichuan Airlines Airbus A320-200 taxing @CKG.jpg
- File:Saudia Boeing 777-300ER taxing @CKG.jpg
- File:Garuda Indonesia Boeing 777-300ER NRT.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: and user indeffed --Denniss (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
Possibly taken from http://www.tmg.com.vn . Looks like a promotional picture as well. Same for File:Tracing_paper_for_CAD.jpg DieBuche (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I am owner of this web and I agreed for usages of this picture and other.
Newone 04:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Subtituted by a svg version (File:Torino mappa metropolitana 2011.svg) Friedrichstrasse (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete I am the creator of the file. If there is such a superior substitute available then we don't need this one here. --Voyager (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete Agreed, substituted by a better version of the file. --CeruttiPaolo (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete--MartinS (talk) 12:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Subtituted by a svg version (File:Torino mappa metropolitana 2011.svg) Friedrichstrasse (talk) 16:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep was ist der Löschgrund? Existierende SVG ist keine Alternative zu PNG. --Ralf Roleček 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep PNG is no replaceable with SVG. Also opening a second DR only 4 hours after the previous one was closed as kept? Tm (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep OK, it is no longer in use, but we still routinely keep preexisting PNG files when an SVG is created. There is no reason to delete this one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
In all of these files is specified license PD-NASA and sources - hubblesite.org, nasa.gov or spacetelescope.org. But in these sources I cannot find these files.
- File:Mu Herculis.PNG
- File:Бетельгейзе.PNG
- File:Альнилам.PNG
- File:Κ Lyr.PNG
- File:Вега.PNG
- File:Γ Peg.PNG
- File:Β Lyr.PNG
- File:Кастор.PNG
- File:NGC 2220.PNG
- File:Υ And.PNG
- File:85 Pegasi.PNG
- File:Alpha Mensae.PNG
- File:Beta Canum Venaticorum.PNG
- File:HD 50692.PNG
- File:HD 44594.PNG
St1995 13:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
And also:
St1995 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 23:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Peter Mokaba Stadium
[edit]Per COM:FOP#South Africa: non-free architecture.
- File:Estadio Peter Mokaba.JPG
- File:Peter Mokaba Inside.png
- File:Peter Mokaba Stadium (Polokwane).jpg
- File:Peter Mokaba Stadium.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 15:26, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Peter Mokaba Stadium
[edit]works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
LGA talkedits 07:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep The architecture here seems de minimis to me, that's why I did not include them in the previous DR. --Eleassar (t/p) 08:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ticks most of the tests for not DM in that :
- Both are used to illustrate the stadium
- Both are categorised to the stadium
- The stadium is named in the filenames of both
- Both use the stadium name in the description
- therefore the Stadium is not DM and if the stadium is not nor is the architecture. LGA talkedits 09:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ticks most of the tests for not DM in that :
- Yes, the images depict the stadium. The goal and the grass are also part of the stadium, they can still be used to depict it, but they're not copyrightable. The stands (that's what I had in mind as architecture) however are in the background and do not differ from any other standard stands. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The focus is obviously on the goal and the pitch (hence the usage in e.g. pl:wikt:bramka). I do not see any architectural features visible, once again only stands of the simplest possible shape which are out of focus — NickK (talk) 13:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in South Africa -FASTILY 21:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Soccer City
[edit]works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:Inside Bowl of Soccer City Stadium.jpg
- File:Soccer City Stadium 2010.jpg
- File:Soccer City Stadium at night.jpg
- File:Soccer City Stadium johannesburg, South Africa.jpg
- File:Soccer City Stadium Johannesburg.jpg
- File:Soccer City Stadium.jpg
- File:Soccer-City-Stadium-at-capacity.jpg
- File:South Africa-Johannesburg-Soccer City003.jpg
LGA talkedits 00:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Some Kept, some deleted: Rationale: Deleted images: No FOP in South Africa. Kept images:No stadium visible or the stadium is de minimis Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Soccer City
[edit]works of architecture, images displayed on stadium screens are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:FNB Stadium - Soccer City.JPG
- File:Mandela Homenagem Joanesburgo.JPG
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-10.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-12.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-14.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-15.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-16.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-17.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-18.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-6.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-7.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-8.jpg
- File:Mandela-Memorial-FNB- 2013-12-10-9.jpg
- File:Rain at FNB Stadium 1.jpg
- File:Soccer-City-Stadium-at-capacity.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the deletion request is nonsense. FOP it only essential by Works of Art. No Work of Art, no problem whe havent FOP in South Africa.--Bobo11 (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- +1 Keep --— Allrounder (talk) 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not the case, copyright also covers architecture. Have a read of COM:FOP#South Africa LGA talkedits 19:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in South Africa -FASTILY 21:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Soccer City
[edit]In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in South Africa.
- File:FNB Stadium 2014-11-08.jpg
- File:FNB Stadium aerial view - Panoramio (cropped).jpg
- File:FNB Stadium Arrial View - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:FNB Stadium Arrial View - panoramio.jpg
- File:Fnb stadium.jpg
- File:Soccer City - panoramio.jpg
A1Cafel (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and similar previous listings regarding same building. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Copyrighted marker. The bottom right corner says the date is 1996 . No freedom of panorama for this in the U.S. Same for File:Paoli_marker_comprehensive.jpg Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 22:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. For one thing, I've looked all over both images without seeing a date. On top of that, see pages 8 and 11 of this document from 2007: it says that the memorial was built in 1973, and it references this document, which on page 8 notes that the 1973 memorial is the "Indiana Initial Point Memorial". No hint of 1996, but everything points to 1973; if that date is present on the marker, it refers to something else. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was referring to the numbers "96" on the bottom right corner of the bottom right map, that don't appear to refer to anything. I guess your documents say otherwise. Thanks. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 02:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: my reading is that the issue has been resolved Ymblanter (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it does not meet the definition of Commons:Publication#United_States and it is an unpublished work copyrighted for 120 years after creation because copies were not sold to the public and merely displaying it in public does not constitute publication. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 07:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. This just got closed; it's disruptive to renominate something just because you don't like yesterday's closure. Forum shopping is not tolerated. And also, you may want to read Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC, in which your position on this kind of exhibition is roundly rejected. Nyttend (talk) 16:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- But I agreed with you and withdrew my nomination above. I followed a link in the discussion to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. It appears the publication definition changed in 1978 and doesn't apply to this because it was erected in 1973. I'll make changes to Commons:Publication. No need to get upset. I withdraw my nomination Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 17:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- But I agreed with you and withdrew my nomination above. I followed a link in the discussion to Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. It appears the publication definition changed in 1978 and doesn't apply to this because it was erected in 1973. I'll make changes to Commons:Publication. No need to get upset.
Kept: withdrawn--Ymblanter (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Impuls Arena
[edit]FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP. Two are taken from the air and are also not covered.
File:Gegentribüne-impuls-arena-leer.jpgnothing copyrightable here. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)File:Gegentribüne-impuls-arena.jpgnothing copyrightable hereFile:Impuls arena 06-2009.JPGnothing copyrightable hereFile:Impuls Arena Augsburg 2011.jpgnothing copyrightable hereFile:Impuls-arena-2009-07-26.jpgnothing copyrightable here- File:Luftaufnahme Impuls Arena 2.jpg - the roof design might merit a discussion
- File:Luftaufnahme Impuls Arena.jpg - the roof design might merit a discussion
File:Panorama Impuls Arena vor NIG-JAP.jpgnothing copyrightable here
LGA talkedits 02:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep pls what its proprietary on this pitures? I dont see any work of art. No work of art, no problem with fotos are dont FOP. --Bobo11 (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are covered by German copyright LGA talkedits 11:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep @LGA: Please understand what FOP means in general. You are right, German FOP does not apply for these pictures, but still there is no problem with the photos as there are no or hardly any (→ De Minimis) copyright-protected parts in these pictures. The interior architecture of a usual football stadium cannot be considered protected when not having concrete indications (such as court decisions). Yellowcard (talk) 11:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- @LGA: Yes. Works of architecture are covered per § 2 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 UhrG. However, it's a requirement that there has to be a "geistige Schöpfung" (roughly translated with "intellectual creation") per § 2 Abs. 2 UrhG that limits Abs. 1 in its applicability. According to several German court decisions (Supreme Court decisions included), usual works of architecture are not protected. You have to individually reason what is speacial in each picture. Mass deletions are not possible with your arguments. Yellowcard (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The architectur is rather functional and IMO doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep There is nothing copyrightable shown in these images... Chaddy (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have taken the liberty to strike the filenames of those images which show nothing copyrightable. IMO, the 2 aerial shots merit some discussion about whether the roof design has originality (Schöpfungshöhe) or not.
- Also: I have removed a personal attack against the nominator. Please stay on topic. --Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I think, that crossing the files was precipitate. All these photos, including the crossed ones, show enough copyrightable architecture. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please remember that the level for copyrightability (COM:TOO) in Germany is rather high. --Túrelio (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Túrelio Please revert the "Crossing" - there is more than enough copyrightable architecture on display in all of the images, it is all custom designed quite specifically for this stadium. LGA talkedits 12:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I see no need to revert Túrelio's edit... --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- @LGA: Could you please eventually start to CONCRETELY point out WHAT elements (I mean, you state there's "enough") are supposed to be copyrighted? Thanks a lot. Yellowcard (talk) 12:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- All architecture is copyrightable, the only time that I am aware of architecture has not been afforded protection is in relation to prefabricated mass produced houses and not to independently designed sports stadiums, all of the elements you see in these images, the roof, the stands everything was custom designed with this stadium and this client in mind and is therefore copyright to the architect. LGA talkedits 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- @LGA: You're wrong. Please consider that German Urheberrecht applies here. The roof might be debatable (see Túrelio), the stands for sure are not copyrighted. Please respect the facts, see opinions (for keeping the images) of experienced users above. "All architecture is copyrightable" – that might be true for US or whatever country's laws, but not according to the German Urheberrechtsgesetz. Yellowcard (talk) 13:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- All architecture is copyrightable, the only time that I am aware of architecture has not been afforded protection is in relation to prefabricated mass produced houses and not to independently designed sports stadiums, all of the elements you see in these images, the roof, the stands everything was custom designed with this stadium and this client in mind and is therefore copyright to the architect. LGA talkedits 13:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Túrelio Please revert the "Crossing" - there is more than enough copyrightable architecture on display in all of the images, it is all custom designed quite specifically for this stadium. LGA talkedits 12:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please remember that the level for copyrightability (COM:TOO) in Germany is rather high. --Túrelio (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just in short, as I don’t have much time now. Per § 2 Absatz 1 Nr. 4, Absatz 2[6] of copyright law of Germany (UrhG), which is primarily applicable here due to the location of the building, buildings (or parts of them) are copyrightable only if they are a work of art (Baukunst) above threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe or Gestaltungshöhe).[7]
- Whether something qualifies as a “work of art” needs to be evaluated individually, of course. Nevertheless, § 2 Absatz 2 UrhG[8] clearly states that to be copyrightable per this law, a work needs to be “a personal intellectual creation”. Further qualifiers, as used in legal literature: it needs to be “clearly above the average” of comparable buildings.[9][10]; “individuality does not equal originality“[11]. Other refs: [12],[13],[14]. All my references are in German and IANAL, sorry.
- Now, applied to the above listed images, I am still convinced that they show nothing copyrightable, except possibly #6&7. --Túrelio (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the stadium design is a "personal intellectual creation" can not be up for debate, it clearly is; and we are talking about an custom design, created for this tenant, we are not dealing with a mass produced chair, office block or house. LGA talkedits 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a pity you keep repeating yourself instead of dealing with the arguments other users bring into this discussion based on publications. As Túrelio said before: Individuality is not originality. You say that each stadium is individual. That's fine. It doesn't say too much about the copyright protection due to German law, though, as the threshold of originality must be reached; this is not only reasoned with individuality. Yellowcard (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the stadium design is a "personal intellectual creation" can not be up for debate, it clearly is; and we are talking about an custom design, created for this tenant, we are not dealing with a mass produced chair, office block or house. LGA talkedits 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It seems that COM:FOP#Germany doesn't apply unless the camera is located in a public place, and it seems that places high up in the sky or inside a location which requires an entrance fee do not count as public places. The threshold of originality for applied art seems to be quite low, as established e.g. here. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct in your 1st statement about FOP, though it isn't an issue here. However, I have to question your analogy of a designer chair (image) to a complex building. I can easily see quite some originality in this chair, but not in the discussed arena. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- +1, that's two completely different things. I meanwhile feel honestly bothered by Stefan4's quotes and links to court decision that don't fit to the deletion requests at all. I only can speak for German UrhG and this deletion requests are senseless. Please close. Yellowcard (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are correct in your 1st statement about FOP, though it isn't an issue here. However, I have to question your analogy of a designer chair (image) to a complex building. I can easily see quite some originality in this chair, but not in the discussed arena. --Túrelio (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom A.Savin 19:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Impuls Arena
[edit]per Gnom and H-stt in this discussion in German-language Wikipedia: This stadium is a work of architecture protected by copyright; freedom of panorama in Germany doesn't cover aerial photography, so aerial / drone photos of this stadium can't be kept. Though as mentioned in COM:FOP Germany, a regional court (Landgericht) in Frankfurt am Main ruled "that it is allowed to photograph copyrighted works even from the airspace and to use the resulting images for commercial purposes, provided that the works are in public spaces" in 2020, but apparently, a higher court (Oberlandesgericht Hamm) ruled differently since then (maybe H-stt can elaborate on that and update COM:FOP Germany accordingly). See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Gelsenkirchen - Photographs of Arne Müseler (Hamm decision).
- File:Augsburg Stadium, Germany (9655832783).jpg
- File:Impuls Areana 100428 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 090726 03 Tag der Eröffnung - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 090726 06 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 090726 20 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 0909 01 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 0909 02 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena 980726 09 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Impuls Arena1008 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Stadion 1106 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Vorbereitung 1106 - panoramio.jpg
Gestumblindi (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- @Gestumblindi: Ich sehe keinerlei SH bei der Gestaltung des Daches. Das ist so simpel wie nur möglich gestaltet. Bitte begründen, wo da die SH sein soll.
- Außerdem wären davon unzählige Luftaufnahmen betroffen. Das wäre eine Grundsatzfrage, die besser erstmal grundsätzlich geklärt werden sollte, statt hier vorschnell ein Exempel zu statuieren. -- Chaddy (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Es ist etwas ungünstig, die Diskussion parallel auf zwei Seiten zu führen. Den Ausführungen zur Schöpfungshöhe, die h-stt gerade hier gemacht hat, würde ich mich anschliessen. M.E. muss aber jeder Fall für sich betrachtet werden, ich würde diesen LA also auch nicht als "Exempel" betrachten, sondern eben eine Einzelfalldiskussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Das finde ich allerdings auch. Hätte man vermeiden können, indem man mit dem LA noch etwas abwartet. Die Diskussion auf UF hat erstmal gelangt...
- Zu den Ausführungen hab ich mich drüben geäußert (@abarbeitender Admin: bitte auch die Diskussion drüben berücksichtigen).
- Ja, das sind natürlich immer Einzelfallentscheidungen. So ist das bei den U-Bahnstationen aber auch. Und trotzdem ist es auch eine Grundsatzfrage, weil so quasi alle Luftaufnahmen von Gebäuden, die noch nicht alt genug sind, betroffen sind. -- Chaddy (talk) 22:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Wenn man ihnen Schöpfungshöhe zuspricht. Die sehe ich hier zwar, du siehst sie nicht, das ist nun also zu diskutieren... Gestumblindi (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Es ist etwas ungünstig, die Diskussion parallel auf zwei Seiten zu führen. Den Ausführungen zur Schöpfungshöhe, die h-stt gerade hier gemacht hat, würde ich mich anschliessen. M.E. muss aber jeder Fall für sich betrachtet werden, ich würde diesen LA also auch nicht als "Exempel" betrachten, sondern eben eine Einzelfalldiskussion. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I just updated COM:FOP Germany. And yes, the vast majority of aerial photography from Germany has to go, if modern buildings are the center of the image. Only those buildings, where the copyright has expired, where the modern building is just one of many in the picture or the building is extremely simple, we can keep the picture. And with extremely simple I mean exactly that. The public toilet building on a highway rest station was declared protected, the box shaped toilet building of an public inn in Bavaria is even a listed building, because the proportions of the windows are considered typical for the time of construction de:Waldwirtschaft Großhesselohe. --h-stt !? 14:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- I would guess that buildings like merely functional agricultural sheds or typical warehouses / storage buildings (basically boxes with no aesthetical aspirations whatsoever) would still be below the threshold of originality, but buildings like this stadium do aspire to a certain aesthetic appeal, see for example this article published when it opened: "Das Stadion selbst ist ein architektonisch ansprechendes Gebäude (...)", an "architecturally appealing building". Gestumblindi (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- In dem Absatz geht es aber nur um Sicht, Akustik und interne Infrastruktur. Zur äußeren Form - und nur um die geht es bei FOP - heißt es: "das Dachtragwerk hingegen ist eine Stahlkonstruktion mit Fertigbauteilen". Man könnte vielleicht darüber diskutieren, ob die an Lochkarten erinnernden Fenster an der Eingangsfront Schöpfungshöhe aufweisen (eher nicht, das sieht man an jedem zweiten Bürogebäude-Neubau heutzutage), aber solche Konstruktionen sind weder "architektonisch ansprechend" noch ragen sie "aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens" hervor (s.u., OLG Karlsruhe). Chianti (talk) 17:22, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- I would guess that buildings like merely functional agricultural sheds or typical warehouses / storage buildings (basically boxes with no aesthetical aspirations whatsoever) would still be below the threshold of originality, but buildings like this stadium do aspire to a certain aesthetic appeal, see for example this article published when it opened: "Das Stadion selbst ist ein architektonisch ansprechendes Gebäude (...)", an "architecturally appealing building". Gestumblindi (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
- Delete because at this point I’m assuming German FOP only exists on alternate Thursdays in November if they aren’t public holidays except in Bavaria where it’s exclusively Wednesdays in September Dronebogus (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- ? -- Chaddy (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- The questions we have to answer here are difficult, but not that complicated. First question: Does German freedom of panorama apply? If yes, we keep the pictures. Second question: If the answer to the first question is no and German FoP doesn't apply, is this building above the threshold of originality (TOO)? If no, we keep the pictures, as they then don't need FoP. Now, Chaddy and Ralf who argue for keeping the pictures both argue with the TOO. They don't argue that FoP applies, so I assume thet they concur with the assumption that FoP isn't applicable for aerial/drone photography in Germany. So, I'd say that the state of this discussion is: No FoP, but maybe (I think otherwise) not meeting TOO. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, they are difficult, and complicated. Because TOO is meaningless guesswork (how the crap do I know if this stadium is “artistic”?) and German FoP law only applies to, basically, one very specific situation (street-level photography of permanent installations in completely unrestricted public areas). So yes, I’d say that the stadium is above TOO because it’s not some mass-produced, purely utilitarian industrial building and also that FoP obviously doesn’t apply Dronebogus (talk) 06:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
- The questions we have to answer here are difficult, but not that complicated. First question: Does German freedom of panorama apply? If yes, we keep the pictures. Second question: If the answer to the first question is no and German FoP doesn't apply, is this building above the threshold of originality (TOO)? If no, we keep the pictures, as they then don't need FoP. Now, Chaddy and Ralf who argue for keeping the pictures both argue with the TOO. They don't argue that FoP applies, so I assume thet they concur with the assumption that FoP isn't applicable for aerial/drone photography in Germany. So, I'd say that the state of this discussion is: No FoP, but maybe (I think otherwise) not meeting TOO. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
- ? -- Chaddy (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Icxh kann hier keinerlei SH sehen. --Ralf Roletschek 08:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
- Ich auch nicht, und das OLG Karlsruhe sieht es ebenso: "... individuellen Züge, die das Bauwerk als persönlich geistige Schöpfung qualifizieren" bzw. "nicht nur das Ergebnis eines rein handwerklichen oder routinemäßigen Schaffens darstellt, sondern dass es aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens herausragt" [15]. Hier nicht der Fall, das ist eindeutig eine bautechnisch bedingte Konstruktion, vergleichbar mit dem seriellen Baustil einer Fabrikhalle. Da ist überhaupt keine persönliche geistige Schöpfung erkennbar - nicht, was "aus der Masse des alltäglichen Bauschaffens herausragt". Chianti (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. (Perhaps keep File:Impuls Arena 090726 06 - panoramio.jpg, File:Impuls Arena 0909 02 - panoramio.jpg and File:Stadion 1106 - panoramio.jpg as DM.) --Krd 10:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Krd: Bitte lies mal Chiantis Kommentar. Der fasst es auf Basis eines Gerichtsurteils gut zusammen. -- Chaddy (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, most since aerial photographs are not covered by FOP and German standards for DM are strict (kept three per Krd). --Abzeronow (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- This is a very wrong decision. Chianti’s input unfortunately was completely ignored. This stadium is not copyrightable at all. -- Chaddy (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
Santorum images
[edit]- File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg
- File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg
- File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg
- File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg
- File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg
- File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg --- closed as keep in scope Gnangarra 07:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I know that commons doesn't have a BLP policy like en.wiki's, but I believe these images are entirely out of scope. They are not educational at all; rather, they're nothing but an attempt to soapbox and to demean a living person. Commons should not be used as a propaganda tool. Salvio giuliano (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep, @Salvio giuliano (talk · contribs), why did you only nominate these, and not all the others in Category:Caricatures of politicians ??? They are most certainly in scope, they are a form of satire and parody, as political cartoon expressions. -- Cirt (talk) 06:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment, and 2nd, the nominator failed to point out in the nomination statement that File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in scope, it is used on Wikinews. -- Cirt (talk) 07:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - See also a recent (failed) deletion request for another political caricature image Commons:Deletion requests/File:Putin on the Ritz.jpg, and corresponding category, Category:Caricatures of Vladimir Putin. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 07:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg I have closed as this file is in use on an article published by Wikinews and therefore meets the requirements of COM:SCOPE. Gnangarra 07:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
- Interesting point. I wonder who was the author of that Wikinews article. Drmies (talk) 21:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg as this seems to be a photo of a real life object. Delete Non-notable other not-used images. If there was some evidence they'd been displayed somewhere besides Flikr, I'd be for keeping them, but right now they're out of scope.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Personally I don't think File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg, File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg have any great merit, but would be in scope if used in the media etc. File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg is fair political comment and clearly usable and in scope. File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is clearly within scope if it is in use, or has previously been used legitimately by any wiki project. If File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg is real then yes it documents an interesting and note worthy event, certainly within scope. It would be a very bad idea to delete images from one side or the other during a political campaign, it just sets a precedent and will probably encourage tit-for-tat deletion requests. Maybe delete File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg as it is not really a caricature if not recognisably of the subject (unless you know the original photo). --Tony Wills (talk) 08:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Legitimate political satire, within scope, Keep. DS (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- Strong Keep The United States has a long and strong tradition of mercilessly satirizing our leading politicians. (See other media and subcategories of Category:Caricatures of politicians of the United States.) As one of the leading contenders for the Presidency (as well as a nationally prominent Senator) Mr. Santorum has joined such luminaries as Abraham Lincoln and William Jennings Bryan in being "fair game" target for insulting political cartoons. It's the "American Way". - Infrogmation (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
- I started deletion requests for certain images from Category:Santorum neologism-related images and I will start more but this nomination is strange, I see only examples of "real" caricatures. Bulwersator (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Delete. This is pure soapboxing. Note, for instance, File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, where Cirt saw fit to add the Santorum-neologism category, for which no grounds exist other than the "Frothy" link. By any measure of common sense, soft-serve ice cream does not look like frotily mixed anal lube and shit. Infrogmation, that the US satirizes its politicians doesn't mean that they need to be helped by Commons administrators (and Wikinews editors). Drmies (talk)
- So your argument is that the image should be deleted because it's badly categorised? -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
- Comment - Related deletion discussion, at Commons:Deletion requests/Santorum cocktails. -- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
- A frothy Keep. Satirical images produced in the debate over a highly notable bigot. They're likely to become more useful and historically interesting if his holiness gets elected. --Simonxag (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
- Keep -- Keep all. I don't believe anyone has ever made a politically neutral political cartoon. Contributors at the various wikis can discuss how to use these images in a way that complies with their policies, but as nominator acknowledges, these images don't lapse from our policies. I would be willing to agree to the deletion of the last image as it seems to have been thrown together with very little effort, except it is has already been used on a WMF project. Geo Swan (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Kept, The general consensus is that as a group the images are valid political satire and are in scope, as they could reasonably be used for such subjects. If there are individual images which are thought to be out of scope, then individual DR should take place for those. russavia (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Take 2
[edit]These images were clearly created to smear and demean Rick Santorum. They were imported to Commons, and incorporated into content as part of the w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism. I dont like Rick Santorum's positions, but I agree with Salvio giuliano that the Commons should not be used in this way. The WMF board has recently passed the resolution wmf:Resolution:Media about living people which clarifies that media of that kind should be deleted. COM:SCOPE doesnt overrule WMF board resolutions. At least one of these images is used on other projects; the projects can import any deleted image locally if they feel that the usage on their project is acceptable. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment -- um, NO, it's OUR JOB to host in-use files at commons.
- in-use = in scope.
- "acceptable" is subjective, & your personal standard is NOT commons' policy. Lx 121 (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg
- File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg
- File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg
- File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg
- File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg
- File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg
- Keep. Protected form of political speech. Expression of satire and form of parody. That is, unless we are to delete all forms of images in Category:Caricatures and Category:Political cartoons? These forms of satire and parody were upheld as forms of freedom of speech in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I feel that while File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg is clearly intended to be derogatory, it is part of a series of images that documents a real event and it is a useful example of the feelings of people offended by Rick Santorum, so for that image I think there are sufficient grounds to not blindly follow the WMF resolution. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note - File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg = in-use on Wikinews, in-scope, should be kept, was previously kept early before close of prior discussion (which closed as "keep" anyways), as obviously in-scope as in-use, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 06:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Related ongoing deletion discussion = see a related ongoing deletion discussion started for similar reasons, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Jimmy Wales by Pricasso (the making of).ogv. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Question Do we have a complaint (formal or informal) from the subject? If he is a Wikimedian, just a comment on the talk page of him in any WMF project is enough. If he is not a Wikimedian, he can mail to info-en-c@wikimedia.org (See Commons talk:Contact us/Problems#Consent Issues). Thanks, Jee 07:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The individual depicted in the satirical parody images is a public figure, being a former United States Senator and candidate for President of the United States. I don't believe he is a Wikimedian. -- Cirt (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, please read w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism which answers your questions in detail, but I will quote part of the intro: "In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index." And I will also quote one more sentence: "Noam Cohen of The New York Times described the situation as a hijacking of online identity." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html user:Cirt used Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wiktionary as part of that identity hijack, which still exists today. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks John for the links; I just went through them. I've no problem with homosexuality, but don't support attacking a person against my views. But I have a difficulty to understand the entire topic as I have little knowledge in the US politics.
- I see two problems in accepting this topic for a general discussion. Both the subject and the photographer are non Wikimedians; we have not received any complaints from them. They can mail us, but it is up to them.
- It seems you blame a particular user alone in this case, probably the uploader. Unlike EN Wikipedia, here admins form strong groups and blindly support each other, so just counting of vote never works. Better make a formal complaint through the email I suggested above (preferably from the subject and the photographer) and review the entire issue through ongoing communications with them. If we have similar issues, it is better to form a bench to deal such cases; trying to deal it through a DR is not much helpful. It is my experience in the Jimmy Wales case too. I have no hope in that DR; that is why I didn't voted there. We need to develop a better system to handle such cases. Otherwise our projects will deteriorated as another adult entertainment site. Jee 13:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Jkadavoor, please read w:Campaign for "santorum" neologism which answers your questions in detail, but I will quote part of the intro: "In September 2011 Santorum asked Google to remove the definition from its search engine index." And I will also quote one more sentence: "Noam Cohen of The New York Times described the situation as a hijacking of online identity." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/business/media/an-identity-hijacked-on-the-online-highway.html user:Cirt used Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, Wikinews and Wiktionary as part of that identity hijack, which still exists today. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Cirt - parody is important. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:02, 1 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I've been asked by Jayen466 here to include the result of the media in Category:Santorum neologism-related images in this batch. I would prefer this was not done, as big batches become messy discussions, and I'd rather focus this request on the media files that clearly depict Rick Santorum. The other images are part of the same campaign, and do need to be re-evaluated, however they don't include his face or likeness. The nominated set also have issues to do with personality rights. e.g. this flickr photo was digitally modified to create File:Rick Santorum - frothy Caricature.jpg, and this flickr photo is the basis of the creative art that is File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg and File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg, by an artist of no known notability. There are a few more items in Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum which could easily fall under the new BLP-media resolution, but I think we should re-evaluate the previous batch nomination before looking at media to determine whether they are verifiable & neutral. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- To determine if what exactly is verifiable and neutral John? Verifiability and neutrality is a Wikipedia concept, and isn't required here on Commons in relation to media. Can you please explain exactly what you mean here. russavia (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Hi russavia, blame the WMF board for forcing Wikipedia terminology down Wikimedia Commons throats without consultation :P There will be a lot of policy discussions coming from this (or a board clarification), so I can only offer my opinions on how we may attempt to implement the WMF board resolution. Firstly, I hope we dont implement 'verifiable & neutral' at the discrete file level, as that would mean deleting all political statements, including cartoons. Individual pieces of media are never neutral. The only way I see to implement 'verifiable & neutral' is that we don't accept user-contributed art about a living person (i.e. it must have been public speech - published or presenting in a public arena), and we don't allow our collections of media about a living person to be disproportionately negative or positive, as compared to public opinion of the person. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- To determine if what exactly is verifiable and neutral John? Verifiability and neutrality is a Wikipedia concept, and isn't required here on Commons in relation to media. Can you please explain exactly what you mean here. russavia (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Still legitimate satire about legitimately notable public figure, still Keep. DS (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This DR appears invalid because it does not name the images that are being proposed. How am I supposed to know how to comment if I do not know what you all are talking about? darkweasel94 14:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I've added the same list as before; thanks. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I see this as an attempt to link this type of political protest with the issue surrounding the use of Jimmy Wales's likeness for a portrait painted with a penis. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_%28the_making_of%29.ogv Surely no one here sees this as the same issue? Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Me, at least. So far we have no complaints from the subject or the photographer. Here the uploader only upload the contents somewhere available; not "commissioned" anything. So it seems a WP:POINTy nomination per "If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion...do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale." Jee 18:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- These nominations and many more are caused by the WMF board resolution. Santorum is a 5+ year advocacy/harassment campaign; the Jimmy thing pales into insignificance IMO. User:Jkadavoor, Santorum has complained at length about the problem, in reliable sources and many TV interviews. Maybe there is no email in our OTRS about it, but it is an undisputed fact on the Wikipedia article that he finds these images offensive, and there are many reliable sources that assert this is harassment. Why do you choose to ignore complaints that don't come to OTRS? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- John, I'm not insisting for an OTRS. My only initial discomfort was the way you presented this nomination stating "If the Commons community doesnt remove intentionally derogatory media about Santorum, then..." which is unfair. As I stated above I've difficulty to understand this entire topic because of my lack of knowledge in US politics. But many comments below convinced me that this is worth for a re-review. And if we are deciding to keep any images that are adapted works; we must remove any links to the Original Author and Source; if he demands. I am
Abstain - Delete per John Vandenberg, Peteforsyth and many others. A pointy use is not worth to consider. Jee 06:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- We do not editorialise other projects' content. If they use it and it's freely licensed, it is within scope. We do not pick and choose which uses are "legitimate". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I remember this DR. It had 20+ uses at that time (if I remember well). We did not editorialize, while closing that DR? Jee 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't take a DR that had no comments on it establishing much of a consensus. Also, there's a difference between user space and main space; main space is a serious part of the project, not the toy of just one, and deleting a file from there is a much bigger deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- But we kept this as it used in a userpage. Do we need to keep "artistic interpretación" of a living person for the sake of "in use in a user page?" My understanding is that many of us bend, twist and use our policies according to their interests. :( Jee 05:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, always vaguely accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith; that helps discussions. That case is quite a bit different in that no privacy issues were brought up because it closely follows a photo we have in Commons. That DR was all about scope, not artistic interpretations. You want to argue that serious users shouldn't be given more leeway as to user/talk pages images? I don't see how that's relevant to our current discussion. Given that no user commented on both of those DRs, accusing them of bending policy to get the different result is entirely unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you didn't noticed that even the license there was invalid as the breach of CC terms? The file was created on March 2011. So you can assume how many copyright violations may have occurred since then in every reuse, if happened. It is not my job to fix the mistakes others are doing. Do our jobs well; or take a retirement. I'm not accusing any; it is a self crytisizing comment. Take it or not. Jee 03:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have no clue what "there" or "the file" is supposed to refer to in that comment, or how any copyright violation isn't a strong deviation from the topic under discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you didn't noticed that even the license there was invalid as the breach of CC terms? The file was created on March 2011. So you can assume how many copyright violations may have occurred since then in every reuse, if happened. It is not my job to fix the mistakes others are doing. Do our jobs well; or take a retirement. I'm not accusing any; it is a self crytisizing comment. Take it or not. Jee 03:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, always vaguely accuse your fellow editors of acting in bad faith; that helps discussions. That case is quite a bit different in that no privacy issues were brought up because it closely follows a photo we have in Commons. That DR was all about scope, not artistic interpretations. You want to argue that serious users shouldn't be given more leeway as to user/talk pages images? I don't see how that's relevant to our current discussion. Given that no user commented on both of those DRs, accusing them of bending policy to get the different result is entirely unfair.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- But we kept this as it used in a userpage. Do we need to keep "artistic interpretación" of a living person for the sake of "in use in a user page?" My understanding is that many of us bend, twist and use our policies according to their interests. :( Jee 05:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't take a DR that had no comments on it establishing much of a consensus. Also, there's a difference between user space and main space; main space is a serious part of the project, not the toy of just one, and deleting a file from there is a much bigger deal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I remember this DR. It had 20+ uses at that time (if I remember well). We did not editorialize, while closing that DR? Jee 10:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- We do not editorialise other projects' content. If they use it and it's freely licensed, it is within scope. We do not pick and choose which uses are "legitimate". -mattbuck (Talk) 09:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- John, I'm not insisting for an OTRS. My only initial discomfort was the way you presented this nomination stating "If the Commons community doesnt remove intentionally derogatory media about Santorum, then..." which is unfair. As I stated above I've difficulty to understand this entire topic because of my lack of knowledge in US politics. But many comments below convinced me that this is worth for a re-review. And if we are deciding to keep any images that are adapted works; we must remove any links to the Original Author and Source; if he demands. I am
- These nominations and many more are caused by the WMF board resolution. Santorum is a 5+ year advocacy/harassment campaign; the Jimmy thing pales into insignificance IMO. User:Jkadavoor, Santorum has complained at length about the problem, in reliable sources and many TV interviews. Maybe there is no email in our OTRS about it, but it is an undisputed fact on the Wikipedia article that he finds these images offensive, and there are many reliable sources that assert this is harassment. Why do you choose to ignore complaints that don't come to OTRS? John Vandenberg (chat) 18:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strong Keep per previous. Satirizing and mocking prominent political figures has been a major part of the US political discourse for more than 2 centuries, including demeaning caricatures of deliberately vulgar taste. (See for example this 1804 caricature of Thomas Jefferson as a vomiting dog.) Senator Santorum, as a prominent US political figure, and a former and possibly future presidential candidate, in the public eye, is subject to such mockery the same as others have been for centuries. It is not the place of Wikimedia to try to judge whether satires by opponents meet standards of taste, fairness, or decency. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting, File:1804 prairie dog sickened at the sting of the hornet or a diplomatic puppet exhibiting his deceptions byJamesAkin LC.jpg is a most fascinating example, I am sure that images similar to that one were submitted as evidence in the case Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. -- Cirt (talk) 21:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
DeleteTo be very, very clear this delete vote is not based upon COM:SCOPE, because the images are clearly in scope. The DR also needs to be extended to cover ALL images in Category:Santorum neologism and Category:Caricatures of Rick Santorum, and without prejudice on whether the images are in use on projects (or on off-project sites via the Instant Commons function). The resolution by the WMF is very clear -- all media hosted on WMF operated servers since the date of the passing of the Pricasso Amendment are from herein required to be "neutral" and "verifiable". These Santorum images are, as John correctly points out, neither neutral nor verifiable. R.I.P. a censorship-free Commons; the WMF has spoken. russavia (talk) 21:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)- Should that not be extended to the entirety of Category:Caricatures, and whatever we have on political cartoons? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Entirety? The WMF resolution is about living people. Caricatures/political cartoons are a likely source of 'BLP' problems, as they tend to push the boundary in order to make a point, so I have tried to populate Category:21st-century caricatures (which is where most unpublished caricatures will be, and some copyvios to boot), and then I created & populated Category:Caricatures of living people (which includes quite a few drawings of Wikipedians). The most important point I want to make after 900-odd edits categorising these files is that Wikimedia Commons doesnt have many unpublished caricatures. So reaching 100% "verifiable" wrt caricatures of living people is not going to result in many deletions. OTOH, achieving "neutrality" is not as simple. ;-) However, besides the well known problem items by Carlos Latuff, I didn't see too many that I felt were obviously inflammatory. Some were poor quality, uploaded by drive-by contributors, which I think we could easily find consensus to delete. I dont like the idea of deleting user-generated caricatures that accurately capture how published caricaturists have portrayed a living person (good or bad), as a few of our user-generated caricatures are damn good, and hit the 'neutral' mark to my mind. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Changing my opinion to strong Keep. As noted by John Vandenberg in a section above the resolution was made without consultation with the wider community, and they have passed a resolution with extremely damaging wording. As seen from Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Streisand_effect, I started a DR using the precise wording from the WMF resolution and this was rejected by the community. Here we are in a similar situation, using the WMF resolution and its wording in a DR situation. This is extremely problematic, as the resolution should be discussed by the community at large, and then an attempt be made at changing Commons policy (this would be required), then DR's can take place. Doing this in reverse is extremely problematic, and extremely damaging to Commons. These images are on a notable subject, and there is no copyright issues, so they can be in scope. Not being in use does not require deletion. russavia (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Changing my opinion to strong
- Entirety? The WMF resolution is about living people. Caricatures/political cartoons are a likely source of 'BLP' problems, as they tend to push the boundary in order to make a point, so I have tried to populate Category:21st-century caricatures (which is where most unpublished caricatures will be, and some copyvios to boot), and then I created & populated Category:Caricatures of living people (which includes quite a few drawings of Wikipedians). The most important point I want to make after 900-odd edits categorising these files is that Wikimedia Commons doesnt have many unpublished caricatures. So reaching 100% "verifiable" wrt caricatures of living people is not going to result in many deletions. OTOH, achieving "neutrality" is not as simple. ;-) However, besides the well known problem items by Carlos Latuff, I didn't see too many that I felt were obviously inflammatory. Some were poor quality, uploaded by drive-by contributors, which I think we could easily find consensus to delete. I dont like the idea of deleting user-generated caricatures that accurately capture how published caricaturists have portrayed a living person (good or bad), as a few of our user-generated caricatures are damn good, and hit the 'neutral' mark to my mind. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should that not be extended to the entirety of Category:Caricatures, and whatever we have on political cartoons? -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- This will surprise some coming from me, but: Delete those and only those that aren't in use on a Wikimedia project (including talk pages; they too should stay coherent archives), because I do not see the educational value. They do not appear to be preexisting notable caricatures, or made by an even marginally notable artist, or published e.g. in a major newspaper. If they were any of these things, I would say we should keep them (like File:Alan dershowitz by Latuff.jpg per criterion 2). It is entirely possible that "other stuff exists", but that is never a valid argument, we aren't a project for publishing one's own caricatures. darkweasel94 21:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You will note however, darkweasel, that even images used on sister projects and therefore in scope actually are nominated for deletion in this request, and the prior one, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, and that's why I said only those that aren't in use should be deleted. darkweasel94 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- And the others are linked through sister-links for example at Wikinews, what is being proposed would be an attempt to censor the images and empty out the categories as much as possible which seems to be an abridgement of the very issue at the heart of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, don't you think, darkweasel? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- That ruling is fairly irrelevant here, because not everything that isn't illegal is also within our scope - we regularly delete stuff that we could keep and still not violate any laws. If you can make a convincing case for how each of the unused images are good illustrations for the topics of these Wikinews articles, then yes I would say we can keep them. darkweasel94 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- They could be used in the future for new articles on Wikinews. By censoring them here, we rob other writers of perusing them. -- Cirt (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- That ruling is fairly irrelevant here, because not everything that isn't illegal is also within our scope - we regularly delete stuff that we could keep and still not violate any laws. If you can make a convincing case for how each of the unused images are good illustrations for the topics of these Wikinews articles, then yes I would say we can keep them. darkweasel94 22:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- And the others are linked through sister-links for example at Wikinews, what is being proposed would be an attempt to censor the images and empty out the categories as much as possible which seems to be an abridgement of the very issue at the heart of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, don't you think, darkweasel? -- Cirt (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Of course, and that's why I said only those that aren't in use should be deleted. darkweasel94 22:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I really don't quite understand this but Russavia has nominated for deletion at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Streisand effect images that are w:WP:Featured Pictures on three (3) different language Wikipedias and used on many other language Wikipedias as well. -- Cirt (talk) 22:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I think the resolution is more subtle then this. I do not believe that we can tell any wikis to upload locally; I believe that anything that a Wikimedia Wiki can use legitimately under that resolution Commons can host under that resolution. As such:
- Keep File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg. It is verifiable that someone wore that costume, and by making it a photo it lets us deal with the subject at a distance.
- Delete The others; they're unnotable non-neutral illustrations (File:Rick Santorum, Jack of Hearts - frothy Cartoon.jpg is out of scope, to boot).
Neutral With the possible exception of File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, which is a horse of a different color. I think Category:Artwork by Greg Uchrin should live or die together; are they notable artworks from a politically charged author, or non-neutral artworks?
- --Prosfilaes (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Prosfilaes, and what about File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg, which has been in-use for almost two years at Wikinews, at n:Santorum neologism gains prominence during US election cycle? -- Cirt (talk) 06:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's in use because you put it there. This is the tail wagging the dog. Andreas JN466 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And it was subsequently reviewed by another member of the Wikinews community, became a stable article, was archived, and has been stable for years since then. -- Cirt (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well, it's in use because you put it there. This is the tail wagging the dog. Andreas JN466 18:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The resolution requires us to take human dignity into account. We balance this against our goal of hosting free educational material and other policies. There are indeed similarities between the Pricassso video and these Santorum images. Both insult the subject in a way that is ironically associated with the topic they have voiced opinions on (porn, homosexuality) and both do so in a way that is juvenile and beneath our best satirists. However the Pricassso video of Jimbo's portrait has negligible educational value and zero notability (the artist is marginally notable), and the conflict there is one purely internal to Wikimedia projects. The Santorum affair has had notable press coverage. Since the main focus of the Santorum satire was a neologism rather than an image, it may be that some of these images also fail to be notable contributions to the notable campaign. I would support keeping the notable caricatures but removing any others. Other people here are better able to judge which than me. -- Colin (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom that these violate the revised WMF guidelines as linked to. I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. yes, he is a public official, so he is a legitimate target for political parody and even political attacks. Are we really sure we should be the instigators of such attacks? I see the dividing line being where we report on existing debate by providing images related to the debate, but dont add to the debate. I seem to be in the distinct minority here. I know that we got rid of Commons:Deletion requests/File:African women icon.svg primarily due to its being an original work by a wikimedian, which was a variant on a racial stereotype, thus could not be used to illustrate an article on historical racism, and thus was out of scope, but would have been fine if it was a controversial, well known cartoon released into the public domain by the creator. if we can delete an image like this, i think the santorum images can also be deleted. (ps i am not a santorum partisan in the slightest, and i would be fine with keeping any of these images if they were posted to the creators own websites or other appropriate venues, then got significant publicity, and were THEN uploaded here.).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And what about the photo of a man in a Halloween costume? That's clearly not us originating anything.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per Mercurywoodrose's comment: I think the idea that ordinary Wikimedians can create and upload their own artwork, which is political parody or a critique of a public figure, is wrong. I have no problem with such images being here if they are public images from notable commentators (political cartoonists, etc). These images represent OUR entry into the political discourse, which i find disturbing. The pre-existing notability of the artist should be the criterion. If the artist is not notable, there is no educational value and Commons becomes merely a platform for political (self-)promotion. That is not part of the project scope as I understand it. --Andreas JN466 18:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Further to User:Prosfilaes's comment above, happy to Keep File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg (though I must say, I don't get how the costume relates to Santorum). Andreas JN466 19:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep those by DonkeyHotey: fair enough, upon further research, the guy turns out to be notable. Andreas JN466 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Further to User:Prosfilaes's comment above, happy to
It seems consensus may be leaning towards deleting any images by non-notable artists. Is this a principle that is in practice for other media or art forms. Many of the location photos are not by notable artists but I suppose I could argue the location is. The recent "black face" graphic was deleted for being out of scope due to its non-notable artist. Still trying to wrap my head around this one. 131.137.245.206 19:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that is where consensus is going, but I hope it is limited to art about living people. To that end, I have proposed a "Moratorium on user-generated art about living people". John Vandenberg (chat) 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete If people want to publish their own political cartoons, Tumblr and Flickr are free to all. Even ignoring the loss of encyclopedic purpose here, there is no possible knowledge-promulgating purpose for such works; it is a gross violation of our supposed neutrality for us to be put such a use. Mangoe (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we must delete images, I would say that File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg would need to be kept. There's a difference between creating your own cartoons and documenting others', especially in public events such as Mardi Gras. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, i didnt look at EACH image this time, two more are here from the last time i looked. I agree that the above file should be kept, as an exception to my deletion comments above. that one is simply a documentation of a very public event. If the event was offensive, the answer is more free speech, which we can also document if public. Im not sure about File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, this is a cartoonist who has gotten some attention, and its a webcomic, so he at least is hosting his own images in addition to providing some to us.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- I thought he might be notable by the name in the filename, but didn't recognise it. I did recognise the Zach Weinersmith one in the Santorum-neologism-related category. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Both of these have copyright issuesː the costume because I do not see that permission was obtained from the costumer, and the other does not link to a place where permission is granted for this image. ̴̴̴̴̴173.66.8.19 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The costume I do not believe is copyrightable, as it is not itself an original work, but instead consists of fairly ordinary clothes and a large penis type thing. The penis type thing may be copyrightable, but it is a small part of the overall costume and therefore falls under COM:DM. As for the copyright of the Weinersmith image, (I cannot believe I just had to search "weinersmith santorum". It's just wrong.) it has an OTRS ticket, which would indicate that it is suitably licensed. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Both of these have copyright issuesː the costume because I do not see that permission was obtained from the costumer, and the other does not link to a place where permission is granted for this image. ̴̴̴̴̴173.66.8.19 01:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I thought he might be notable by the name in the filename, but didn't recognise it. I did recognise the Zach Weinersmith one in the Santorum-neologism-related category. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, i didnt look at EACH image this time, two more are here from the last time i looked. I agree that the above file should be kept, as an exception to my deletion comments above. that one is simply a documentation of a very public event. If the event was offensive, the answer is more free speech, which we can also document if public. Im not sure about File:Saint Santorum political cartoon caricature by Greg Uchrin.jpg, this is a cartoonist who has gotten some attention, and its a webcomic, so he at least is hosting his own images in addition to providing some to us.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- If we must delete images, I would say that File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg would need to be kept. There's a difference between creating your own cartoons and documenting others', especially in public events such as Mardi Gras. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep A key piece of evidence in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was a cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey and calling him an "ass". That cartoon is unfortunately now lost because there was no Commons to preserve it, but Commons is full of images (such as these) that have been considered vile, vicious attacks on political figures. It's part of the culture and heritage of the United States that political figures are fair game for attacks and parodies. These images are legitimate political discourse found on Flickr and properly uploaded as we upload all kinds of user-generated, original work. (The only one I'm on the fence about is File:Senator from Pennsylvania satirical parody costume.jpg, which appears to be just some guy at a party.) I would not include them in a Wikipedia article but I can imagine all sorts of potential uses for them that fit in with the mission of Commons. Gamaliel (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. COM:SCOPE excludes "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use", "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack", "Advertising or self-promotion" (these are representative examples given). Is it your view that any piece of suitably licensed amateur art to be found anywhere on the net should be uploaded to Commons? Andreas JN466 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Don't we already do that? Gamaliel (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fascinating. I have created an article about w:The Entry (the cartoon depicting George Washington on a donkey). It appears to have been widely distributed at the time, unlike these caricatures of Santorum. I doubt the Washington cartoon would have been lost had the internet existed back in 1789. I wouldn't be surprised if it turns up in a private collection. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- User:Gamaliel talks of Commons "preserving" "all kinds of user-generated, original work". This is a frequent misconception, that Commons is a kind of digital ark for freely licensed media. I think some people truly think that is what Commons is, hence anything with a free licence is claimed to be "educational" and any attempt to delete media is "censorship". But that isn't Commons' mission at all. It might be a worthy project goal for someone, like the Internet Archive, but it isn't what WMF have created here. If you can change the mission of commons to be "a repository of all freely licensed media" then I'd agree that everything should be allowed and we'd no longer have deletion discussions other than over licence issues. -- Colin (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- What mission is fulfilled by this? Gamaliel (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Well I do think that "educational" should be interpreted as broadly as reasonably possible, and many "unused personal photo, out of scope"-DR'ed images could really serve to illustrate e.g. certain facial features of humans. But in this case I can't think of anything reasonable these files could illustrate. darkweasel94 13:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Meh. COM:SCOPE excludes "Artwork created by the uploader without obvious educational use", "Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack", "Advertising or self-promotion" (these are representative examples given). Is it your view that any piece of suitably licensed amateur art to be found anywhere on the net should be uploaded to Commons? Andreas JN466 22:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Commons shouldn't censor political expression as long as it isn't slanderous or libelous, which these aren't. As for scope and notability, the reaction to Santorum and other politicians in public by Americans is part of our national political culture. These aren't ephemeral or marginal, and I don't see anything in the WMF resolution calling for all images about living people that aren't praising or promoting them to be immediately nuked. INeverCry 21:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment I could be convinced to delete for lack of notability (COM:SCOPE) but I have issue with deleting these in response to the new BLP resolution given the obvious political satire and parody aspects. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete It is somewhat routine to delete user-generated artwork here, and in my view we should be less permissive of it, except where there is some independent reason to think a specific work of art is significant. If any of these images was created by an artist known outside our community for their work, or if they were published independent of Commons (e.g., in a news article about perceptions of Rick Santorum), in my view, that would be a reason to keep; but absent that I think deletion is best. (I should note, this vote has nothing to do with the scandalous nature of the images, or personality rights. I have the same view about these paintings, which are innocuous and attractive, but as far as I know have no particular significance as works of art.) I also don't think the resolution is relevant, as Rick Santorum is a public figure and the images relate to what he is known for. -Pete F (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I was falling off the fence until you brought up the other paintings, which I could envision as being useful in their own right especially if nothing from someone more notable was available. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- One point I failed to address is the use by other projects, which has been discussed a fair amount above. I just checked, and only the first one is in use, and it's on a talk page on Wikinews -- not the main space. This does not qualify as a legitimate reason to keep it -- see here: Commons:SCOPE#Must_be_realistically_useful_for_an_educational_purpose
- In answer to Saffron Blaze -- I should have been clearer. I have not carefully considered every one of the Ingeborg Bernhard paintings, and you're right -- some might be worth keeping. My point is, being created and uploaded by a Commons user isn't enough in itself to establish that a file has artistic or educational merit; something more is needed to justify a "keep" vote. -Pete F (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Fair enough. The issue regarding the Pricasso work seems to me to be clear delete. Same with clear keep on the Streisand Effect images. These require much more editorial judgment as there is no clear logic statement I can make in my head that results in a decision. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- n:Santorum_neologism_gains_prominence_during_US_election_cycle uses File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg. I don't know why it's not showing up on the image page, but the image is in use there, and has been for a long time.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is strange. Yesterday it was working fine on that specific image. I've noted this at Commons:Village_pump#Backlinks_missing, as it might be happening to other images. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strange. I'm pretty sure I've encountered that before, but I've never been able to narrow down the cause. At any rate -- I don't think any of these that is in use in main space on any project (or otherwise substantively in use) should be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pete F, I think each project needs to find their own way. In general Wikimedia Commons should host any free content that used on other projects, but we already break that rule when it comes to copyright. English Wikipedia hosts many media files that are PD in the US, but not PD in the home country of the creator. The Commons community has chosen a different scope wrt copyright, in the interests of being more appealing to an international audience. Wikinews & Wikipedia host media files that are non-free, because they are fair-use in specific contexts. Likewise it is possible for the Commons community to decide that an image is not suitable for its collection, however Wikinews makes an exception for the image because they are using it in a specific context where it is appropriate, or even educational. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- @John, there's merit to what you say, but I'll stick with my vote as it stands: delete those that are not in use in project main space, but keep the one that is. The precedents you cite have to do with licensing, while this instance has to do with personality rights. The licensing framework is set out by a pretty clear resolution of the Wikimedia board dating to 2007. (Not to get too much into the details, but for the benefit of those who don't know the history: projects are invited to establish "Exemption Doctrine Policies" relating to things like copyright and fair use; some projects have done so, establishing clear policies and processes.) There is no analogous broad board resolution relating to personality rights; although the recently-amended BLP resolution and "Images of identifiable people" resolution do relate to personality rights, they are rather specific and not comprehensive to the level of the EDP framework. But, it's a longstanding and (I think) pretty uncontroversial principle here that if a file is in use, substantively, by another Wikimedia project, it is considered to be within Commons' scope. If and when we have a coherent and comprehensive framework for making decisions around personality rights, I would agree with your take; in the meantime, I think there are two options: (1) keep the file here in order to non-disruptively serve Wikinews, or (2) pursue deletion through the Wikinews site and article where the image is used, in reference to this resolution. -Pete F (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I still believe that Commons' primary goal must be as an archive for the other Wikimedia projects. As such I believe it is entirely reasonable to say that if an image can pass the policy in use in a Wikimedia project, it obviously passes the policy for Commons purposes. I don't necessarily think that we should keep File:Still_Life_with_Rick_Santorum,_Lube,_Dildo,_and_Justin_Bieber_doll.jpg but if we do delete it, it should be because we are of the opinion that it is unsuitable for use on Wikimedia projects, including where it is on Wikinews. Maybe that will end up with some locally held images due to disagreements about suitability, but I don't think we should go into it with the opinion that's a good natural thing rather then a problematic one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Pete F, I think each project needs to find their own way. In general Wikimedia Commons should host any free content that used on other projects, but we already break that rule when it comes to copyright. English Wikipedia hosts many media files that are PD in the US, but not PD in the home country of the creator. The Commons community has chosen a different scope wrt copyright, in the interests of being more appealing to an international audience. Wikinews & Wikipedia host media files that are non-free, because they are fair-use in specific contexts. Likewise it is possible for the Commons community to decide that an image is not suitable for its collection, however Wikinews makes an exception for the image because they are using it in a specific context where it is appropriate, or even educational. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Strange. I'm pretty sure I've encountered that before, but I've never been able to narrow down the cause. At any rate -- I don't think any of these that is in use in main space on any project (or otherwise substantively in use) should be deleted. -Pete F (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is strange. Yesterday it was working fine on that specific image. I've noted this at Commons:Village_pump#Backlinks_missing, as it might be happening to other images. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- This was a bug, caused by Cirt and Brian McNeil uploading the artwork to Wikinews and then moving it to a new name. See wikinews log. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, I was unaware that a bug would have been caused by that. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- This was a bug, caused by Cirt and Brian McNeil uploading the artwork to Wikinews and then moving it to a new name. See wikinews log. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete - Attack "artwork". I may personally dislike Santorum, but there is still no reason to create attack pages. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![72 File:Uxair Mahmood " am2k30 ".jpg](#File:Uxair_Mahmood_"_am2k30_".jpg){kind=link}
_2013-12-13_21-46.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Volksaltar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ltd..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-09-05_10-57.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![289 File:Ido Maimon Promo Picture taken from his debut album "Dreams".jpg](#File:Ido_Maimon_Promo_Picture_taken_from_his_debut_album_"Dreams".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![02:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/15#c-Érico_Júnior_Wouters-2013-12-15T02:10:00.000Z-File:Uxair_Mahmood_"_am2k30_".jpg){kind=link}
![07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/15#c-Fastily-2013-12-22T07:58:00.000Z-File:Uxair_Mahmood_"_am2k30_".jpg){kind=link}
_2013-12-13_21-46.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-12-13_21-46.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2013-12-13_21-46.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-12-13_21-46.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Volksaltar.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Volksaltar.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_Volksaltar.jpg){kind=link}
,_Volksaltar.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Ltd..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Ltd..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Ltd..jpg){kind=link}
_Ltd..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-09-05_10-57.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-09-05_10-57.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_2013-09-05_10-57.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-09-05_10-57.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Postcard_of_Ljubljana,_Pre%C5%A1eren_Square_at_night_%284%29.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Black_and_white_silhouette_of_the_Preseren_statue,_Ljubljana.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-Shirin_Tamarisk_2013-12-14_23-49.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![11:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/15#c-Jameslwoodward-2013-12-15T11:13:00.000Z-File:Ido_Maimon_Promo_Picture_taken_from_his_debut_album_"Dreams".jpg){kind=link}
![12:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/15#c-80.230.89.139-2013-12-15T12:38:00.000Z-File:Ido_Maimon_Promo_Picture_taken_from_his_debut_album_"Dreams".jpg){kind=link}
![19:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2013/12/15#c-INeverCry-2013-12-23T19:48:00.000Z-File:Ido_Maimon_Promo_Picture_taken_from_his_debut_album_"Dreams".jpg){kind=link}
_parking_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_landing_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_taxiing_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_take_off_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_arrive_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@LGW.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@LGW.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
3_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@SIN.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_take_off_@SIN.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Airbus_A320-200_landing_@KNO.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@ICN.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Boeing_777-300ER_take_off_@CGK.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Boeing_767-300ER_landing_@CGK.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Boeing_777-300ER_landing_@CGK.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_landing_@DPS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@DPS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Boeing_777-300_@Soekarno-Hatta_International_Airport.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Soekarno_Hatta_International_Airport3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Soekarno_Hatta_International_Airport2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_Soekarno_Hatta_International_Airport.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
on_taxing_@AMS.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
landing_@NRT.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- That is the issue in a nutshell. Deciding what is spurious attack or legitimite satire. In this case I think these represent the satirical response Santorum generated with his politically motivated speech. It is a stark reminder to those in public office that you may be held accountable for what you say. The topic is in scope but it would be prefered for a properly curated collection of free images that these be notable in their own right. 131.137.245.206 13:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note that File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in use on another site, and for some reason even though it's been in use at Wikinews for years, it's not showing up on the image page under the global usage section at the moment, not sure why. -- Cirt (talk) 16:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- "and for some reason" - you can do better than that. The reason is Brian McNeil uploaded a local copy, and you moved the local copy aside. See the wikinews log. Had you told us what had happened on wikinews, this would have been fixed sooner and less time wasted. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation, I was previously unaware that such actions would have caused that result. -- Cirt (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- "and for some reason" - you can do better than that. The reason is Brian McNeil uploaded a local copy, and you moved the local copy aside. See the wikinews log. Had you told us what had happened on wikinews, this would have been fixed sooner and less time wasted. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete If these were by a noted artist, there would be educational use in them. But they're not. Even though I personally find Santorum repulsive, that does not mean I agree with using Commons to further a political cause. — Scott • talk 22:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment -- No offense, but I think this nomination implies there is a clear interpretation of the WMF resolution -- and I am concerned it is far from as clear as implied.
- Note the fourth last paragraph of the current wording of the resolution
- Ensuring that all projects in all languages that describe or show living people have policies in place calling for special attention to the principles of neutrality and verifiability in those articles;
- So, doesn't this mean, that all the rest of the resolution applies here at commons as laid out in Commons:BLP? Well, isn't Commons:BLP#Moral issues the pertinent section? I don't think it says any of what this nomination claims is required of us.
- If our nominator thinks Commons:BLP#Moral_issues has to be updated to comply with this recent WMF resolution there are mechanisms for them to lobby for those updates. However, is making nominations that hinge on interpreting Commons:BLP#Moral_issues as if those changes had already been made the way to argue for those updates? I don't think so. Geo Swan (talk) 02:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note: Tineye shows File:Rick_Santorum_-_frothy_Caricature.jpg is also being re-used at [16].
- Tineye shows File:Rick Santorum, Soda Jerk - Caricature.jpg is also being re-used at [17].
- No WMF project created the discussion that associated Senator Santorum with a frothy discharge. That discussion was part of the arena of political discourse. To not cover this discussion would be a breach of neutrality. Does covering the discussion erode Senator Santorum's dignity? Senator Santorum is a public figure. When an individual chooses to become a politician at the National level -- particularly in the USA -- they have chosen to sacrifice their dignity. They have chosen to be the target of criticism that might seem unfair, that might seem unfairly unrebuttable.
- Consider former Senator, former VPOTUS, Al Gore. He will forever be the butt of jokes based on twisting a comment he made about the invention of the internet. Gore, a legislator, said something like he "took the initiative for creating the internet". Vint Cerf and other computer scientist who, fairly, really did "invent" the internet, credit Senator Gore for taking the legislative initiative for creating the internet.
- Gore partisans would no doubt be overjoyed if they could get all WMF projects to stop covering the discussion over whether Gore did or didn't claim to have "invented" the internet. But, even if the discussion erodes Gore's dignity, neutrality requires us to find a neutral way to cover it. I suggest exactly the same principle should apply to discussions that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. Geo Swan (talk) 03:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The Tineye examples are worthwhile, as they illustrate that Commons media is often reused outside our projects, and that we should take that into consideration. (In this case, the example cited appears to be an illegal copyright violation, and also would not be impacted by the deletion of the file, since the author copied the file to a Google server.)
- I'm not inclined to change my vote, but I do think this consideration is compelling. If nothing else, it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies. If files like these are to be deleted, it is much better if they are deleted swiftly after uploading, since it (a) minimizes the possibility that the deletion would interfere with reuse, and (b) gives better feedback to the uploader about what is or isn't acceptable. -Pete F (talk) 04:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Clarification please -- are you asserting that since http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca/2012_02_01_archive.html doesn't credit either the commons, or the flickr source that it is a copyright violation? Or are you asserting that the uncredited image used there demonstrates the original flickr source is a copyright violation?
- In either case doesn't it demonstrate that the general concept of political cartoons that link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges are part of the arena of political discourse?
- If you are asserting the commons version is a copyright violation may I suggest you really need to explain your reasoning, or accept that everyone will discount this argument? Geo Swan (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The former, of course. There is no problem with the Flickr stream. But (both!) of the sites you linked (rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca and hinterlandgazette.com) have violated the terms of the CC licenses. (Hinterland appears to be OK with respect to this specific image, but has several other images erroneously credited to "Wikipedia.") -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- So you accept that the flickr contributor is the creator. Intellectual property owners are free to release images under multiple terms and licenses. For all you know the re-users at those sites contacted the flickr contributor, who explicitly gave them more generous re-use permissions than flickr allows. I regard it as a stretch for you to assert, as if it were a fact, that the re-users were copyright violators. For all you know those sites could be the work of the flickr contributor.
- I can't imagine why we're still talking about this detail. Please rewind and note that I stated that they appear to be copyright violations. Apart from, perhaps, some obsessive need on your part to get every word perfect, what is the point of continuing this discussion? I didn't come here to argue with you, my entire purpose in leaving the comment was to underscore the importance of your initial point. Sheesh. -Pete F (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even if, for the sake of argument, the re-users are violating the flickr contributor's IP rights, how do you jump from that to "it's certainly a good reminder of why it is worthwhile for us to have and consistently and swiftly enforce clear policies." For all we know those re-users got the images from flickr, not the commons. Geo Swan (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- The former, of course. There is no problem with the Flickr stream. But (both!) of the sites you linked (rationalnationusa.blogspot.ca and hinterlandgazette.com) have violated the terms of the CC licenses. (Hinterland appears to be OK with respect to this specific image, but has several other images erroneously credited to "Wikipedia.") -Pete F (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- IMO Commons:BLP#Moral issues statement against "attacks upon his honour and reputation" is quite reasonable with regard to private individuals, but the standard is and must be different for prominent national leaders. I say "must" because such wording can and in some countries has, been broadly interpreted and used to prohibit all public political dissent. If applied stringently here on Commons, it would prohibit uploading everything regarding any and all living political figures anywhere in the world that is not fully supportive of that person, be it Senator Santorum, President Obama, Kim Jong-il, or anyone else. Since I oppose turning Commons into a repository of nothing but sycophancy, I must strongly oppose this deletion nomination. (Note: A few commentators have brought up such issues as project scope and notability. I point out that neither of these issues are being considered in this deletion request; they are not mentioned by the nominator. Were individual images or groups of images put under a different nomination for those reasons, I might well support deletion of certain individual images. But I am not even considering that distraction at this point. In this listing, they are proposed for deletion for the stated reason that they "smear and demean Rick Santorum", so I vehemently oppose this deletion request and urge other users who believe in the right to disagree with prominent political leaders to do likewise.)-- Infrogmation (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Files are checked against all the applicable policies to determine whether their presence here is justified. For example, if in the course of a DR it is discovered that a file is a copyright violation, we don't say that the file has to be kept in that DR, and then a new DR opened giving that as the new deletion rationale before the file can be deleted. Andreas JN466 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- First, I believe these images are compliant with Commons:BLP#Moral issues. Second, I believe that censoring these images would be a breach of neutrality, not an act supporting neutrality. WMF projects didn't link Senator Santorum with frothy discharges. To obfuscate this discussion is to partisanly side with Senator Santorum. Geo Swan (talk) 03:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Geo Swan, I think it is a most interesting point you make that censoring these images would itself be a breach of neutrality. -- Cirt (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't remember any pictures of Santorum as an ice cream cone outside of Wikimedia. Outside of Wikimedia, it's come up in a purely verbal manner, so us approaching the matter in a purely written way seems to reflect the larger world in a neutral way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- On the other hand there may be several, dozens, or thousands, of political images that linked Senator Santorum with frothy discharges -- but the others aren't hosted here because the others weren't clearly "free" images. Geo Swan (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do I understand you correctly that if notable content is not available freely we should accept non-notable content in its stead? 131.137.245.209 15:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't remember any pictures of Santorum as an ice cream cone outside of Wikimedia. Outside of Wikimedia, it's come up in a purely verbal manner, so us approaching the matter in a purely written way seems to reflect the larger world in a neutral way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I can understand neutrality in an article but not in an image. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Santorum is a public figure who ran for the highest political office in the most powerful country in the world. These images are verifiable examples of a notable political campaign criticizing that public figure's stance on major issues. I do not believe the resolution gives any indication that such reasons are not sufficient for retaining the files.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, The Devil's Advocate, indeed there are interesting examples at Category:Caricatures of Barack Obama of images critical of a U.S. President which also shouldn't be censored. -- Cirt (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep – Commons should be able to host and share satirical material, caricatures, and mockery. Caring so much about hurt feelings is what's going to destroy Commons. Freedom of speech exist; freedom from negative feelings and freedom to only receive kindness don't exist and shouldn't exist. The WMF resolution isn't aligned with the principles that the Commons community should value. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Michaeldsuarez, for emphasizing the Wikimedia Commons community value of freedom of speech, most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 17:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- You're welcome. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see a need to delete these images, they are covered by free speech/satire. I don't like the backdoor censorship introduced with (or misused for) this (strange) WMF resolution . --Denniss (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you, Denniss, for noting it appears a censorship tactic is going on here, very astute. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt censorship was at the root of this. More like a press to test. Throw up a bunch of DRs and see where the line if any gets drawn. It's disruptive and divisive but in the end it may work. 131.137.245.206 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I have wondered the same thing. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- I doubt censorship was at the root of this. More like a press to test. Throw up a bunch of DRs and see where the line if any gets drawn. It's disruptive and divisive but in the end it may work. 131.137.245.206 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete any self-published user generated art as per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:African_women_icon.svg (this would of course exclude those by the notable DonkeyHotey artist. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Saffron Blaze, please note that File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in-use on Wikinews and therefore in-scope. -- Cirt (talk) 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems rather self referential. BTW, how old was the Biebs when that picture was made? Aren't there copyright issues with Toys. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's an artist's rendering of their idea of what a toy would look like, not an actual toy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, next time I will look at the image a bit more closely before beaking off. Still, drags the satire into seedy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why does it being a drawing change the fact there is a representation of a child in a sexualized context? 131.137.245.207 15:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Heh, next time I will look at the image a bit more closely before beaking off. Still, drags the satire into seedy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's an artist's rendering of their idea of what a toy would look like, not an actual toy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Seems rather self referential. BTW, how old was the Biebs when that picture was made? Aren't there copyright issues with Toys. Saffron Blaze (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, I find myself agreeing with Pete F. above. If any of these "parodies" had come from notable artists or been widely printed then they'd definitely be within scope, but all I see here are the works of amateur artists with no particular impact. There is ample precedent for not allowing Commons to be used as a file hosting service, and I think that applies here. If there were any images on the topic of the neologism that had appeared in print or on one of the largest internet news sites, I would view that as within scope. Note that this !vote is not related to the content of the images, tasteless though they are, nor on my strongly negative personal feelings towards the subject. Lankiveil (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC).
- Exactly. I think the reason given by the DR is the wrong reason to delete. This is a simple case of COM:SCOPE not COM:BLP. Saffron Blaze (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -- COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED, COMMONS IS NOT CENSORED. how many time does this have to be repeated, before it FINALLY SINKS IN!?
- rick santorum is an american POLITICIAN. the items listed for DR are ALL legitimate political commentary, they ARE within scope, & they DO NOT "violate BLP". for one thing THIS IS WIKIMEDIA COMMONS not WIKIPEDIA. for another, a blandly-worded "mission statement" by the wfm board IS NOT "law" @ commons.
- finally; the fact that we are doing this DR ALL OVER AGAIN, after a clear keep, makes a joke of commons' DR policy.
- this whole business (the repeated DR here, @ pricasso, etc.) is a push to censor wikimedia commons, and it is an ABUSE of "BLP". the only point being demonstrated is that we BADLY need to have a community-wide blow-out review of blp "ideology".
- Lx 121 (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- The funny part is that is what is happening right now all across Commons. Several DRs and Proposals were thrown up to test the waters in response to BLP. The sad part is that in most instances the cases brought forward have little to do with BLP and have more to do with COM:SCOPE or Privacy. I would not delete these images for BLP, but most of them should go as being non-notable. Saffron Blaze (talk)
- Keep. I do not think that the WMF resolution applies to caricatures at all. All caricatures are by definition non-neutral and non-verifiable regardless of notability of the artist. Ruslik (talk) 13:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I find a harm/benefit analysis helpful in these cases. I roughly agree with a combination of {@Prosfilaes ∪ @Cirt} - the first three seem out of scope; the last three have more significant use or relevance.
Benefit Harm Relevance of parody Ad hominems Educational value & use Offensiveness, likelihood of harm Notability of subject Impact of image on searches for subject Notability of style / artist / message Using Commons as a soapbox: original art / message
- Some of these parodies aren't very good or topical; on the other hand they're not ad-hominem, just a bit random. Others such as the Uchrin panel focus on the subject's topical views.
- Most are not in use; however they're also not very offensive. Other popular caricatures of the subject online are much more offensive.
- The subject is quite notable. These images have high visibility - 2 of the first 6, 7 of the first 35 images in google image search, but there are thousands of popular Santorum parody images online, so this isn't a huge fraction of the whole.
- The style of the images is fairly non-notable; some are original art by non-notable artists. The 'ice cream cone' meme wasn't a popular one - it is mainly visible online because it is on Commons. These two seem more representative.
- On balance: I don't see either strong parody value or strong BLP concerns. Nor any reason to remove images that are in use. --SJ+ 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, SJ. What do you think of the images in Category:Santorum neologism-related images? They are not part of this deletion request, but I'd be interested in your views. Andreas JN466 15:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was wondering why these werent also under consideration. Does anyone else see them as relevant here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I re-nominated the set originally nominated on this page, without adding or removing any. Perhaps I should have added File:Santorum artwork by Zach Weinersmith.gif, as that is another caricature, but I did see it. I view the fecal matter images as a distinct set, as they only use the neologism/his surname. If there is no consensus to delete the caricatures, I think the case to delete poo photos named after someone notable is much weaker, and would need to be focused on COM:SCOPE. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree John. The caricatures are all ok, it's the photos of bagged shit that there is a problem with, as they distinctly go against the Pricasso Amendment's verifiability clause. Due to the Pricasso Amendment all material on Commons now has to be verifiable and neutral, and there is no verifiable evidence that any of the shit photos on Commons in the neologism category is "Santorum" as defined by the neologism; that being "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." If any of the photos in Category:Santorum neologism-related images are of actual santorum, then the only thing that I have to say is that some people obviously need to learn to douche before........................ russavia (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the file descriptions say it's dog shit. As for douches, while it's off-topic, for those who give a crap there is a most excellent tool available here. Ergonomically designed (not for dogs though, I suppose). Andreas JN466 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- What a great product! I see this douche kit with a 6 foot long hose. I just know that there is someone out there who thought that they had to use all six foot to....nevermind... russavia (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's even a Commons version. How cool is that? DracoEssentialis (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- The stuff you find ... ;) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- :)) Andreas JN466 13:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- There's even a Commons version. How cool is that? DracoEssentialis (talk) 09:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- What a great product! I see this douche kit with a 6 foot long hose. I just know that there is someone out there who thought that they had to use all six foot to....nevermind... russavia (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, the file descriptions say it's dog shit. As for douches, while it's off-topic, for those who give a crap there is a most excellent tool available here. Ergonomically designed (not for dogs though, I suppose). Andreas JN466 03:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree John. The caricatures are all ok, it's the photos of bagged shit that there is a problem with, as they distinctly go against the Pricasso Amendment's verifiability clause. Due to the Pricasso Amendment all material on Commons now has to be verifiable and neutral, and there is no verifiable evidence that any of the shit photos on Commons in the neologism category is "Santorum" as defined by the neologism; that being "The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex." If any of the photos in Category:Santorum neologism-related images are of actual santorum, then the only thing that I have to say is that some people obviously need to learn to douche before........................ russavia (talk) 06:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I re-nominated the set originally nominated on this page, without adding or removing any. Perhaps I should have added File:Santorum artwork by Zach Weinersmith.gif, as that is another caricature, but I did see it. I view the fecal matter images as a distinct set, as they only use the neologism/his surname. If there is no consensus to delete the caricatures, I think the case to delete poo photos named after someone notable is much weaker, and would need to be focused on COM:SCOPE. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I was wondering why these werent also under consideration. Does anyone else see them as relevant here?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, SJ. What do you think of the images in Category:Santorum neologism-related images? They are not part of this deletion request, but I'd be interested in your views. Andreas JN466 15:35, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment I would support closing this deletion requests as kept for lack of consensus to delete. (This would not preclude relisting individual images here for deletion consideration for completely different reasons, for example scope or notability.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 06:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - I thank Sj (talk · contribs) for the most helpful and astute analysis presented above. As to the comment above by Infrogmation (talk · contribs), it seems that rather than no consensus, current community consensus above is for Keep. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The problem with assessing consensus is that the reasons for keep and delete are so varied. Some have based their decision on concerns of censorship, other on scope, others on notability, others on BLP, etc. The only coherent consensus I can see is delete those that are non-notable, as is common practice on Commons, and keep any that are notable works of political satire or parody. Very few have framed this as an actual BLP issue. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- No that is not a common practice on Commons, but it seems a practice you wish to become common on Commons. Works of political satire and parody have been protected forms of speech against censorship for hundreds of years, and are protected by the unanimous decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just because they are protected forms of speech, doesn't mean we necessarily want to host them. darkweasel94 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but even those that are in use on other sites are the subject of attempted censorship here on Commons, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt I have asked this of you before but you haven't yet answered: are we expected to keep every image that is uploaded to Commons? Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Neither should images be censored for fear that someone would complain w:WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Neither should we create and impose arbitrary restrictions that could lead to censorship of thousands of images and artwork by contributors in a spirit of political cartoons that dates back hundreds of years as explained in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I certainly don't want any kind of censorship here on Commons. It would a be a gross violation of our mission. However, I don't want Commons to become a simple repository of everyone's crap art and political bile. If a work is of high quality, or notable or very useful then that is what we need to make sure we keep. Keeping some of this crap does not further this mission and getting rid of it would not have anything to do with censorship. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but even those that are in use on other sites are the subject of attempted censorship here on Commons, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think you missed the later cases Hustler vs. NBC, where Hustler tried to force NBC to show the cartoon of Falwell, and Falwell v. Hustler, where Falwell tried to insist that Hustler print a rebuttal cartoon. Maybe because both parties knew that they couldn't force a third party to publish something or continue to publish something they didn't want to. Wave the censorship flag all you want, but it's simply not our responsibility to store every non-notable attack image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Hustler v. Falwell was the latest final case, as it was before the Supreme Court of the United States. -- Cirt (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just because they are protected forms of speech, doesn't mean we necessarily want to host them. darkweasel94 18:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Please note this talk page comment by Saffron Blaze: "The DonkeyHotey stuff is professional level and he is arguably a notable caricature artist." -- I agree with this comment, which was posted to the talk page of this discussion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree too. See feature on DonkeyHotey in The Daily Dot as well as dozens of DonkeyHotey caricatures of other politicians hosted in Commons (if there had been a category "Caricatures by DonkeyHotey", his notability and relevance would have been easier to assess). I've revised my vote above to Keep for his artwork. Andreas JN466 00:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please note I have amended my vote to make it clear I want to keep the DonkeyHotey stuff as being from a notable artist and legitimate satire/parody. However, the other files, regardless of the satirical or parody value, unless they are by a notable artist, should go as being out of scope. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree too. See feature on DonkeyHotey in The Daily Dot as well as dozens of DonkeyHotey caricatures of other politicians hosted in Commons (if there had been a category "Caricatures by DonkeyHotey", his notability and relevance would have been easier to assess). I've revised my vote above to
- Comment - Thank you to those above that have changed their votes to Keep for the artwork by DonkeyHotey. Accordingly I've created Category:Artwork by DonkeyHotey to organize contributions by this artist that multiple editors have stated, above, is notable. Thank you again to the detailed analysis, above, by Sj (talk · contribs), most appreciated. I'll note that additionally the image File:Still Life with Rick Santorum, Lube, Dildo, and Justin Bieber doll.jpg is in-use on another site where it has been stable there for years. I hope all are well and I wish everyone contributing to this discussion health and happiness with their families during this time of the solstice holiday season, -- Cirt (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't care who is using it if the use was in response to the uploading here by a non-notable artist. If the artist was non-notable it should have been deleted. If we accept it is in scope now because someone used it then we would by consequence need to invite any and all uploads to a period of review where it might get used and then magically become in scope after the fact. Moreover, I have a real problem with the Justin Bieber Doll being included in the drawing. If you do a google image search for "Justin Bieber Doll" it comes up rather early in the search results. I don't think JB was the subject of the satire and parody yet he gets smeared in the process (no pun), raising both personality and publicity rights issues for me. Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Saffron Blaze, I'm sure there actually are toys that are dolls of Justin Bieber. Just like there are dolls that people can buy that are toys made in the likeness of numerous other musicians. -- Cirt (talk) 02:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but what is the point you are trying to make? That we should not care because it is just a doll, or a drawing of a doll, and not the real person? The file contains his name so he becomes intimately involved in an issue he has no relation with. Is that even fair or just because he is a worldwide public figure, excepting perhaps for certain rainforest people, that makes it OK? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Great, so you admit that there are actual toys that are dolls made of this person that exist, and therefore that there could be pictures of those dolls or paintings and artwork of same that also exist on the Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Cirt, Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Great, so you admit that there are actual toys that are dolls made of this person that exist, and therefore that there could be pictures of those dolls or paintings and artwork of same that also exist on the Internet. -- Cirt (talk) 03:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed, but what is the point you are trying to make? That we should not care because it is just a doll, or a drawing of a doll, and not the real person? The file contains his name so he becomes intimately involved in an issue he has no relation with. Is that even fair or just because he is a worldwide public figure, excepting perhaps for certain rainforest people, that makes it OK? Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep I don't plan to do much here, as this is not an honest process. Every page on Wikipedia is adorned by user generated Wikiproject logos and alert icons and such, but you don't host user generated art. Riiiiiiigggggggghhhhhht. I predict a party line vote among the closers, period. Wnt (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- You make a valid point. i think the distinction we are working with is that the acceptable user generated art is neutral in its emotional or editorial content, and is usually a clear, literal representation of something, or an icon that clearly portrays an idea. I think the problems with user generated art come when the images are open to interpretation, esp. if they dont have a clear use at the commons. Creating a work of art that is something "new" should probably not be hosted here if the work or artist is not known outside our community. I actually DR'd 2 original works of art that i created and posted, after considering the issues here, as they were new interpretations of the rainbow flag, not extant in the world, and have no obvious purpose at any project that i know of. Perhaps we should have a way to tag such original works, and if not used by a project within, say, a week, they are deleted. I know i really dont like using any of the user generated orginal art in articles, as thats blatant original research/synthesis, unless the artwork is an exact, clean copy of an object from history that we dont have a good photo of.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept per INC, Cirt --A.Savin 19:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stadion im Borussia-Park
[edit]FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP. The one taken from the air used a small aircraft and therefore also fails FOP.
- File:Borussia Park Mönchengladbach.jpg
- File:Borussia-Park Innenansicht.jpg
- File:Borussiapark.jpg
- File:Floodlight.Flutlicht.jpg
- File:Gladbach Fans in Kurve.JPG
- File:Luftaufnahme MG Nordpark Borussenpark.JPG
LGA talkedits 02:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- == {{Autotranslate}} ==
{{Autotranslate|Files in Category:Stadion im Borussia-Park|plural}} Affected:
Yours sincerely, LGA talkedits 02:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have sent an email to Borussia Mönchengladbach with request to permit publishing of my photo on Commons. Please wait with deleting until I've got the answer. --Maseltov (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The only file with an actual problem is the image taken from an aircraft (not covered by FoP unless you consider air as accessible by the public), all others do not show any copyrigthable elements (so no need of FoP) and will be kept. --Denniss (talk) 10:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are covered by German copyright LGA talkedits 11:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Better educate yourself so you wan't start that many DR based on false information. The roof design may be considered a protectable design element (De Minimis here) but everything else not. Other elements shown are the open field, lots of seats and some walls with windows. --Denniss (talk) 11:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The visible architectur is rather functional and IMO doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed. --Martin Kraft (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (basically) FOP only applies to copyright violations. Therefore the requester should a) describe the threshold of originality for the architectural elements shown in each photo and b) present arguments that each individual photo in fact violates the copyright; viz. it is not a "free adaptation" (freie Bearbeitung) in terms of § 24 UrhG. If the photo for example shows only a trivial view over a grandstand. As long as the requester can't provide these arguments for each photo, i would generally suggest to keep. --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 1 deleted and the rest kept as COM:DM per Denniss. INeverCry 21:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be permanently installed, which is one requirement for {{FoP-UK}}. Stefan4 (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- IANAL, but they are "permanent" to me by any sensible definition of "permanent". There are hundreds of them mounted regularly all around the store and there is no evidence they'll be taken down any time soon. If that fails the "permanent" criterion in FoP, then we'll have to delete every single item in Category:IKEA products, and every single item in Category:Christmas lights for which the photographer isn't also the lighting architect. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this simply a shelf in a shop from which you can pick toys to buy? That's not permanent as you expect people to remove the toy from the shelf when buying it. In the same way, Christmas decorations aren't permanently installed as they typically are taken down after Christmas. Not all products in Category:IKEA products meet the threshold of originality, but the Swedish threshold of originality for utilitarian objects seems to be fairly low, so a lot of them may have to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Stefan, no I believe you're mistaken. This isn't a shelf. It's a stairwell fence and the plush toys are securely mounted to the fence. Deryck Chan (talk) 10:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Isn't this simply a shelf in a shop from which you can pick toys to buy? That's not permanent as you expect people to remove the toy from the shelf when buying it. In the same way, Christmas decorations aren't permanently installed as they typically are taken down after Christmas. Not all products in Category:IKEA products meet the threshold of originality, but the Swedish threshold of originality for utilitarian objects seems to be fairly low, so a lot of them may have to be deleted. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that these are permanent. Looks like a derivative of non-free content FASTILY 10:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Vida Tomšič in Franc Leskošek-Luka med otroki ob 20-letnici vstaje v Slovenj Gradcu 1961.jpg
[edit]
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: copyrighted bust. In my opinion, it is not incidental, therefore not de minimis. It could be cropped away though. Eleassar (t/p) 09:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Silhouette of the bust was visible - so blurred. --Sporti (talk) 07:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: cropped non-free elements FASTILY 10:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cape Town Stadium
[edit]works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:Cape Town Stadium in Green Point.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium panorama.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium view 2.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium view.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium.jpg
- File:Cape Town, Green Point Stadium.jpg
- File:CTS01.JPG
- File:Green Point Stadium under construction July 2008.jpg
- File:Green Point Stadium, 02-2009.jpg
- File:Greenpoint.jpg
- File:Groenpuntstadion onder konstruksie vanaf suide.jpg
- File:Signal-Hill-052.jpg
- File:Stadium progress - June 2009.jpg
LGA talkedits 23:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete I wasn't aware of that. Too bad, but it does seem clear enough. Blue Elf (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 16:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cape Town Stadium
[edit]Works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:2011-02-06 14-57-32 South Africa - Bakoven 2.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium outside.jpg
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2133.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2167.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2168.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2191.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2339.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2402.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2406.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2415.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2196.jpg
- File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2221.jpg
- File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2338.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I have uploaded new cropped versions of the following in case it helps.
- File:Cape Town, Mandela rememberance 2191.JPG
- File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2196.jpg
- File:Cape Town, Mandela remembrance 2221.jpg
HelenOnline 13:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep the cropped versions and delete the historical un-cropped versions. LGA talkedits 07:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks LGA. Note there is a comment by the original uploader on the discussion page in case you missed it. HelenOnline 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- NP; I did see it, I would not hold my breath as I don't think the City would give the consent that commons would need, but if they do then the un-cropped versions and the ones in the first batch should be restored. LGA talkedits 11:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks LGA. Note there is a comment by the original uploader on the discussion page in case you missed it. HelenOnline 11:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Cropped versions. HelenOnline 13:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted historical versions, cropped versions kept -FASTILY 10:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Cape Town Stadium
[edit]The stadium was completed in 2009 by Gerkan, Marg and Partners. There is no freedom of panorama in South Africa, permission from the architectural firm is required.
- File:2011-02-06 South Africa - Cape Town Stadium.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cape Town stadium - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cape Town stadium - view from V&A Waterfront (evening).jpg
- File:Cape town stadium aerial view 1.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium Fish Eye View.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium from Victoria & Alfred Waterfront.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium Panorama 02.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium Panorama.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium West Entrance.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium- OLD vs NEW - panoramio.jpg
- File:Cape Town Stadium.jpg
- File:Capetown stadium.JPG
- File:Green Point, Cape Town, 8005, South Africa - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:GreenPoint Stadium - Cape Town.jpg
- File:The Cape Town Stadium from Table Mountain Cape Town 066.jpg
- File:Wikimania by Rehman - 2018-07-24 - H007 - Post Conference.jpg
- File:Wold Cup Stadium (11270484726).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
A1Cafel (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- Is there really no legal way to get around this limitation? For example, if the object takes no more than a certain percentage of the photo? How about the Greenpoint.jpg file? — Soul Train (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- @Soul Train If the copyrighted work is not prominent, it might then be allowed as de minimis – but only if you don’t refer to it and don’t use it as a reason for taking or publishing the photo. That probably doesn’t suit your purposes.
- This is a horrible legal situation, which is why (as noted at the linked FoP page) some people are trying to change the law. Brianjd (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 05:41, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moses Mabhida Stadion
[edit]works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa an there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:2011-06-22 11-37-39 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 11-37-47 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 11-37-54 South Africa - Durban - Moses Mabhida Stadium 4hl.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 11-55-30 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 11-58-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 12-08-18 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 12-14-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-00-25.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-00-43.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-01-02.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-02-25.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-03-46.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-04-04.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-04-27.jpg
- File:Durban 21.08.2009 12-14-02.jpg
- File:Estadio Moses Mabhida.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Germany Australia.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil.jpg
- File:FIFA World Cup 2010 South Korea Nigeria.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida 2010 Stadium tour.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Durban Stadium.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium 2010-02.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium at night 2010-02.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium AUG 09.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium Panoramic.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium y el viejo ABSA Stadium.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium.jpg
- File:MosesMabhidaStadium.jpg
- File:MosesMabhidaStadiumDurban.JPG (kept – Taivo)
LGA talkedits 23:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- I don't really know South African copyright law, but I am surprised that my uploads File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Germany Australia.jpg, File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil.jpg and File:FIFA World Cup 2010 South Korea Nigeria.jpg are concerned. All these photos were uploaded to illustrate specific World Cup matches taking place in this stadium and are used in the articles about relevant teams and tournaments (e.g. en:History of the Australia national association football team, es:Alemania en la Copa Mundial de Fútbol de 2010 or ko:2010년 FIFA 월드컵 B조). As the main object of these pictures are matches and not stadium architecture, this should be kept as a case of COM:DM — NickK (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- IMO these all go beyond COM:DM, the stadium is not a trival aspect of the images. As for use on en:History of the Australia national association football team they can all be uploaded to enwp as {{FoP-USonly|South Africa}} just cant be hosted here. LGA talkedits 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is not that easy: firstly, it requires a lot of efforts to copy to all different wikis using these images, secondly, not all of them have similar FoP policies (if you don't want to be enwiki-centered and don't forget about use of photos of Korean team on Korean wiki). The stadium may not be a trivial aspect of these images, but it is definitely not the main aspect. If you really want to, you can try to crop what you consider an architect's copyright violation, but the result will be most likely rather ugly, as it is hardly possible to picture a match without picturing even a single part of the stadium — NickK (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Of the guidelines to determine if a element of an image is not DM; the images you mention above tick a number of them and the fact that it would be hard to remove the copyrighted material from the images and still retain usefulness is a big indication that the depiction goes beyond DM. LGA talkedits 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- I gave it a try and uploaded File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Portugal Brazil cropped.jpg. There is definitely no FoP violation: I kept just the pitch. However, for me now it looks like these teams are playing completely without fans but with journalists. This does illustrate that these teams were playing indeed, but this does not show the atmosphere of the match (that the match was sold-out and lots of supporters attended the match, with a majority of Brazilian ones, but one can also see a number of flags of other countries). This crop is not completely useless, but provided very limited information on the match. Unfortunately, by cutting architectural elements you also crop fans and grandstands which constitute a very valuable part of the atmosphere of each match. Thus I do think that copyrighted architectural elements (like this arch on the roof) are indeed DM compared to players, journalists and fans — NickK (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Of the guidelines to determine if a element of an image is not DM; the images you mention above tick a number of them and the fact that it would be hard to remove the copyrighted material from the images and still retain usefulness is a big indication that the depiction goes beyond DM. LGA talkedits 11:32, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- This is not that easy: firstly, it requires a lot of efforts to copy to all different wikis using these images, secondly, not all of them have similar FoP policies (if you don't want to be enwiki-centered and don't forget about use of photos of Korean team on Korean wiki). The stadium may not be a trivial aspect of these images, but it is definitely not the main aspect. If you really want to, you can try to crop what you consider an architect's copyright violation, but the result will be most likely rather ugly, as it is hardly possible to picture a match without picturing even a single part of the stadium — NickK (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- IMO these all go beyond COM:DM, the stadium is not a trival aspect of the images. As for use on en:History of the Australia national association football team they can all be uploaded to enwp as {{FoP-USonly|South Africa}} just cant be hosted here. LGA talkedits 11:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Cropping fans and grandstands is not needed, when onlookers cover with their bodies all architectural features. It is not so on these photos and all of them have clear architectural features fully seen, so I must conclude: it is difficult to make a free photo about football fans in stadium in South Africa. Personally, I like the cropped version of photo about Brazilian–Portuguese match. This photo is free. The last photo is kept, because no details are seen. Taivo (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moses Mabhida Stadion
[edit]works of architecture are covered by copyright in South Africa and there is no FOP for photos in South Africa see COM:FOP#South Africa
- File:2011-06-22 11-49-36 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 11-51-09 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
File:2011-06-22 11-55-07 South Africa - Morningside.jpg- File:2011-06-22 12-10-39 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:2011-06-22 12-11-38 South Africa - Morningside.jpg
- File:Moses Mabhida Stadium Durban.JPG
- File:South Africa - Durban - Moses Mabhida Stadium.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- First five files are views from the stadium and not views of the stadium. Please do not nominate all files automatically: for example, File:2011-06-22 11-55-07 South Africa - Morningside.jpg depicts seaside and not the stadium — NickK (talk) 08:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- All affected pictures of Moses Mabhida Stadium have already been deleted. FOP requires that the MAJORITY of the picture should show the questionable piece of architechture, if I am not completely wrong. In any case, I habe uploaded all under FOP deleted pictures to the German Wikipedia, where the FOP rules for outside views are not applicable. Simisa (talk) 14:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- What's the source for that claim ? LGA talkedits 07:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep the deletion request is nonsense. FOP it only essential by Works of Art. No Work of Art, no problem whe havent FOP in South Africa.--Bobo11 (talk) 19:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are copyrightable, these images all show architectural elements of the stadium or nearby buildings, to release with a free licence you need the consent of the architect(s). LGA talkedits 07:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why is it in your opinion then not necessary to delete all pictures of South Africa on which a building can be seen? Simisa (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no FOP in South Africa -FASTILY 10:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:OLPC XO-1 and children
[edit]In May 2011 the WMF board of trustees passed http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people. The resolution states:
Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline on photographs of identifiable people with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media, including photographs and videos, when so required under the guideline. The evidence of consent would usually consist of an affirmation from the uploader of the media, and such consent would usually be required from identifiable subjects in a photograph or video taken in a private place. This guideline has been longstanding, though it has not been applied consistently.
Inline with the resolution, the Commons community has strengthened the Commons:IDENT, and we state that all photos which are taken in a private place require both consent to take a photograph, and consent for that photograph to be published.
These photos are taken in an Indian school (a private place), and there is no evidence that each of the parents of the children in these photographs consented to the photographs being taken and published under a free licence.
To ensure consistent application of the WMF resolution as written, these images need to be deleted. It should be noted that the WMF has used one of these images in its 2010-2011 Annual Report (File:Khairat OLPC teacher - retouch for WMF annual report 2010-11 (RGB).jpg), which was published AFTER the resolution was passed, and it would appear that they have not taken their own resolution into account, so I make a personal call for the WMF to recall copies of this annual report and destroy them, for it would not look good for the WMF to be passing resolutions and then blatantly ignoring them at the same time.
.jpg){kind=link}
- File:Harihar Khairat OLPC.JPG
- File:Khairat OLPC teacher - retouch for WMF annual report 2010-11 (RGB).jpg
- File:Khairat OLPC teacher - retouch for WMF annual report 2010-11.jpg
- File:Khairat teacher Banner.jpg
- File:Older children Khairat OLPC.JPG
- File:OLPC India Khairat.jpg
- File:OLPC Khairat Collaborating.JPG
Also, I am adding:
russavia (talk) 22:58, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Selectively nominating images uploaded by WMF employees to make a point about a WMF resolution. Classic russavia. --Conti|✉ 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- These images have been irksome for some time, and it's not the first time that these images have been mentioned by myself. But now's a good a time as any to get rid of troublesome images from the project, given that some quarters expect rigid application of WMF resolutions without question. Don't blame me for being willing to enforce the WMF resolution rigidly as written. russavia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you would be willing to enforce the WMF resolution rigidly, you would have deleted the Pricasso video and portrait by now, or at least supported their deletion. Instead, you fight tooth and nail to keep it, while "enforcing the WMF resolution rigidly" somewhere else. --Conti|✉ 17:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment "Selectively nominating images uploaded by WMF employees to make a point about a WMF resolution. Classic russavia." - I want to remind you that result of discussion shouldn't depend on some user actions or our feelings about that user. That's why I take this comment as unneeded. I think that you know very well that such statements are offtopic, but they could change result by manipulating other people opinions. It's like "that great and smart admin nominated these photos. What should we do" and "that jerk again is going stupid, so what we gonna do?". The nomination stays the same, but people could change their mind because these statements are pointing arguments non relevant to the topic of discussion and causing feelings about nominator, not nominated photos. Even if he's trying to make his point (and probably he want to do it), we shouldn't care about it and look just at the rules and the law. If photos are bad, they should be deleted even if it would be nominated by ubertroll or somebody who would want to see Commons and WMF burn. 89.70.193.134 00:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- These images have been irksome for some time, and it's not the first time that these images have been mentioned by myself. But now's a good a time as any to get rid of troublesome images from the project, given that some quarters expect rigid application of WMF resolutions without question. Don't blame me for being willing to enforce the WMF resolution rigidly as written. russavia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I am also adding the two annual report files to this DR, as they contain this image. The files would need to be cleaned of this image, or deleted, due to the COM:IDENT issues noted in the DR opening. russavia (talk) 23:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed, when taking photographs or videos of children, one should be sure to get consent from them and from their parents or guardians. In this case, the photographer from Khairat did get and doublecheck consent from the teacher and the guardians of each student, explaining that they would be available under a free license for the entire Web to use. Some of those photos were also turned into wall-posters or included in videos; their inclusion on Commons was not the first global publication of them. --SJ+ 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The WMF board resolution only asks for "an affirmation from the uploader of the media" that consent was obtained. As OLPC is the initial publisher of these images, which were used as part of field reports such as this one, the statement above from Sj (a director of OLPC) satisfies that, and I think this DR can be closed. I see that the OLPC reports state that "The students' names are fictitious"; it might be useful to also say that all photos were obtained with permission from the guardian. The same applies here; we should add a template to the photos where acceptable evidence of consent has been provided. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The word of SJ is good enough for me. --Conti|✉ 17:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Although I think keeping this photo is the only option -- because of the discussion here, and not because of anything that pertained before it -- I am very glad to have this issue brought up publicly and discussed. The Wikimedia Foundation and OLPC are two organizations that care deeply about doing these kind of things the right way, even to the point of publishing guidelines for how other people and organizations should behave. Because of that, it is especially important that these organizations go about things in the right way. In this case, and others like it going forward, the file should have had a clear assertion of the permission of the subjects at the time it was uploaded, not merely in response to a deletion request. WMF and OLPC will always have friends in the Commons community, so they need not fear that images like this will be deleted without notification and an opportunity to correct mistakes. This is not as true for organizations or people who do not closely watch deletion requests on Commons, or have friends and associates in the Wikimedia community. To the greatest degree possible, WMF and OLPC should avoid relying on this special relationship with the Wikimedia community, and simply offer up an exemplary approach from the very beginning. But yes, in spite of all this, SJ's comments above are more than sufficient for a Keep decision. -Pete F (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- And one other thing -- in order to bring these images into clear compliance with Commons policy, each one should have a banner that clearly asserts what SJ said. For the benefit of potential reusers, it would be ideal if that banner could be placed there by someone highly qualified to do so, by virtue of his or her personal connection -- for instance the photographer (who personally solicited the consent), or a member of the OLPC board (who received professional assurances from the photographer). It is technically possible for the closing administrator to make the assertion, linking to this discussion; but for the reuser, that will establish a pretty long and convoluted chain of "I assert this because so-and-so asserted that so-and-so asserted that so-and-so took the photo and solicited the appropriate consent." Keeping it simple for our reusers is an important aspect of what we do here. -Pete F (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep
- File:WMF AR11 SHIP 28pp 15dec11 300dpi.pdf
- File:WMF AR11 SHIP spreads 15dec11 72dpi.pdf
The cover girl The "Gypsy Girl" mosaic fragment (Zeugma Mosaic Museum) in WMF annual report passed away hundreds of years ago. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: I recommend this be closed as "keep" only after {{Consent}} (or its equivalent) is added to each file affected, which would bring them into compliance with COM:IDENT. As I noted above, in my opinion it would be ideal if that could be done by the original uploader or by somebody representing the organization in question (WMF or OLPC, respectively). -Pete F (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Info As of now, all except the following three are tagged with {{Consent}} by Sj: 1, 2, 3. The last one essentially has the information, but just lacks the template. --whym (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Using DRs to confirm consent
[edit]All photos taken from the OLPC wiki now have a statement of consent. Yes, please update the consent policies so that all future photos of children require a statement of consent by the uploader. However, please do not DR and remove the [hundred] thousand existing Commons photos that include children but have no such express consent. --SJ+ 22:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sj, as a WMF board member, you are well aware of this WMF resolution passed in may 2011. We already have updated Commons:IDENT#The_right_of_privacy inline with the WMF board resolution. File:Khairat teacher Banner.jpg was uploaded in December 2011, and should have included this evidence of consent at that time by the uploader; unless that is WMF staff are not being educated by the foundation on it's own resolutions and policies that exist. To this end, files will continue to be taken to DR as they have always been; it really is the responsibility of uploaders to ensure that files are on Commons in accordance with Commons policies. russavia (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- @SJ, can you clarify? I don't think anybody's about to take on nominating all such pictures for deletion, but it does seem to me that deletion review is the most efficient tool available for complying with the WMF resolution referenced above. Several examples of images I have nominated for deletion. In most cases, I think they have had good outcomes (i.e., clarity of consent, leading to deletion in some cases, but not in others):
- Note: while none of these pictures contain nudity, the second might be a trigger depending on your perspective on bondage and sexuality. -Pete F (talk) 23:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
- My main motivation in those and other deletion requests has been to encourage deliberation around how the WMF resolution on identifiable people should impact files currently on Commons. In many, maybe even most, cases involving an identifiable person, there is work to be done: contacting the photographer or subject, or otherwise making a determination about consent. Do you think DR is an appropriate way to move toward making a determination of consent, or not? Do you think those were legitimate nominations? -Pete F (talk) 23:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Peteforsyth, DRs are never great ways to clean up large backlogs, because of the timeframe imposed and the aggressive focus on 'deletion', when the intended outcome is actually some other form of cleanup. (often including cleanup beyond what is required to 'avoid deletion'.) The original uploader or photographer is regularly unavailable on the timeframe of a DR to contribute to the discussion.
- DRs may be efficient for individual items, but not for thousands at a time. And there are thousands of images of identifiable people that need confirmation of subject consent.
- When dealing with backlogs of this magnitude, a common approach is first to fix it for newly uploaded files, and then to work through past files in batches.
- The upload form and process does not currently offer a way to indicate consent. This needs to change.
- Commons:IDENT is relatively weak here: it does not currently require that the uploader positively indicate the subject's consent to publish, nor does it state that the lack of explicit consent is grounds for deletion. (It just hints many times that a positive indication would be useful; and hints that "published without consent" might be grounds for deletion.)
- I could see policy shifting to say that, from now on, images of living people uploaded without indication of consent by the primary subjects may be deleted, without the active intervention and complaint of the subject. This would be a healthy change.
- But dealing with the backlog will take longer. If this is handled similar to the way some other backlogs were: images with identifiable people can be catted as such (many already are), those with children with their own cat; then uploaders of those files contacted to update the image metadata with subject consent, linking them to the appropriate template. After a reasonable period of time, those that still haven't added consent could be catted as 'no-consent', and replaced with consentful images where possible, wherever they are in use.
- After this I could imagine you nominating unused images for deletion if necessary; but before then it only seems appropriate in exceptional cases where you have specific concern about harm to the subject. --SJ+ 08:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
- To your specific examples:
- Karen Stollznow - the subject was asking for deletion. A clear case for a DR, appropriate of you to repost it and focus on the relevant problem.
- Sauna (455500368).jpg - this didn't have to be rushed into a DR timeframe; you could have contacted the photographer and waited for feedback.
- Black and White Striped Bondage.jpg - confirming consent was important. but by contacting the photographer and then ignoring his request, you may have simply insulted him.
- Michael Paraire.tif - this was in use; the DR (instead of discussion on fr:wp) was not appropriate imo and offended the uploader, who only noticed it after (apparently) the deletion removed it from the subject's article
- Lo'renzo Hill-White.jpg - the image was in use; a DR (instead of discussion with the uploader) was not appropriate imo.
@SJ, thank you for the detailed reply. There are some surprises in there for me - I think I have misunderstood some things about the way you, and perhaps other members of the Wikimedia Foundation board, have been regarding these issues. (I should say that, while I stand by my nominations and comments, I don’t want to make this discussion about me; I will follow up on that on your user talk page.) I am feeling hopeful that we can find some ways to move in a positive direction, so I hope you’ll bear with me through some details. I think there are two (related) common issues in the discussion around these issues, that I’d like to avoid: (1) extensive discussion of a "problem" without clearly stating what the problem is, and (2) finger-pointing and blame.
- The problem, as I see it: We too rarely defend individuals' personality rights, especially in contrast to the diligence with which we tend to defend the rights of those with intellectual property rights (like copyright). I would like Commons and Wikimedia to present a framework in which individuals feel they have reasonable options with regard to their personality rights.
- I will point out some ways in which WMF has inadvertently caused harm in this arena. I am very confident this is not through any ill intent, and bring it up for one reason only: I think that by developing a shared understanding of the dynamics, we might improve our ability to make things better. Although I think it's necessary to talk about causation a bit, it's not my goal to assign blame. (To the extent there is blame, I arguably own a piece of it, since I worked on the communications around the Upload Wizard as a WMF employee, and failed to anticipate these issues myself.)
In reply to your comment, there are two things I’d like to point out:
First, I think your statement above is inaccurate: (that COM:IDENT "…does not currently require that the uploader positively indicate the subject's consent to publish, nor does it state that the lack of explicit consent is grounds for deletion."). I say this based on the May 2011 Board Resolution ("…Strengthen and enforce the current Commons guideline … with the goal of requiring evidence of consent from the subject of media…), text from COM:IDENT at that time: ("there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy,") and text from the current version: ("The photographer and uploader must satisfy themselves that, when it is required, the consent given is appropriate for uploading to Commons.") (All emphasis is mine.)
- I'm simply pointing out that "must satisfy themselves" is vastly weaker and less enforceable than "must assert". The latter we can ask for, and any Commonsist can later observe whether or not the assertion was made. Since we don't currently ask for positive confirmation / assertion of this satisfaction, if I find an identifiable photo with no such assertion, I don't know what to do: should I assume the best and move on? Ping the uploader for more detail? Flag the image for slow cleanup and eventual (if not cleaned up) deletion? The latter is what we do now to ensure (c) cleanliness: even a good-looking image that you might assume the uploader had rights to, if uploaded with an inadequate license, will eventually be deleted.
Second, you mention the Upload Wizard. I agree, this is a significant tool, which helps uploaders establish appropriate expectations. It's worth noting that the Wizard was moved out of beta in the same month as the Wikimedia resolution, but that even though personality rights were an area of timely concern, it it asked nothing whatsoever of the uploader about personality rights. And it has not been modified in the 2+ intervening years to do so. The Wizard was created by the WMF with substantial input from the Wikimedia community. But I am curious: does Wikimedia have a plan for how to shift the Wizard's behavior in order to support personality rights more effectively? Please note, I'm not saying it necessarily needs to be changed this moment; but if and when there is sufficient consensus around the significance of personality rights, do we know how to go about updating the Wizard accordingly?
- I don't know how the UW is updated, and started a thread on the Village Pump about this before you left this comment. It is important for the community to be able to update and tweak the central tool that all projects use for posting media of any kind. --SJ+ 19:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I think the WMF has some unique tools at its disposal to help calm the dynamics around these issues, and help us move toward a more collegial and productive dynamic that balances various interests. The WMF can help set the tone through the language it uses; and it has a significant ability to influence the software tools that guide the behavior of both new and experienced contributors. Can we find some ways to put those capabilities to good use here? A few suggestions to consider:
- WMF could decisively disavow the phrase "Commons is broken," uttered in the past by WMF Board and staff members, which has gained some currency in many community members' commentary about Commons. I believe this statement, often accompanied by language about "rogue admins," is contrary to the principles of Assume Good Faith and Civility. I don’t think it's true – Commons serves many millions of files to many Wikimedia projects and beyond, vastly increasing the humanity's ability to share knowledge. There are problems, to be sure, but "broken" is a term that seems to imply that the negatives outweigh the positives.
- I hear you, however please note that these phrases and arguments have been made by non-Commonsists about Commons (and non-Wikipedians about Wikipedia, and Wikipedians about Wikipedia, &c.) for years. If you truly mean to follow your desire not to point fingers, please don't claim that this is something 'caused by Board and staff members' only later 'gaining currency in community commentary': that would not be correct.
- Commons is one of the gems of the free knowledge movement; and has the highest ratio of mindblowingly great work to active editors of any project (ok, wikidata and wikisource may recently be catching up here :) If anything, a core problem here is that we need better tools, and better way to recruit new contributors, to keep up with steadily geometric growth.
- Update the Upload Wizard so that it asks questions relevant to personality rights, in addition to those relevant to copyright
- Update policies and processes around bots and API use that upload large quantities of media: currently there is a great deal of attention to copyright in their design, but no attention to personality rights
- Update the "No permission" sidebar item to clarify whether it means "no permission from the copyright holder" or "no permission from the subject"
- Absolutely on all of the above. I'm not clear on where each of these three updates should happen, but we should help speed them along.
Anyway -- what do you think of moving the last few comments over to the Village Pump and seeking out more perspectives from Wikimedians? -Pete F (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Moved over. Please direct further discussion here. --SJ+ 19:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No consensus to delete. Wider community discusison seems to be taking place here FASTILY 08:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Zentralstadion
[edit]FOP in Germany only covers external appearance of buildings and only when the image is taken from a public and publicly-accessible place, these are indoor pictures and they are taken from a place (inside the stadium) that is not publicly-accessible (a fee would be charged for admittance) and therefore are not covered by German FOP.
- File:Zentralstadion-Gesamtansicht.JPG
- File:LOk-Fans.JPG
- File:RB Leipzig vs FC Schalke 04 friendly 24 july 2010.jpg
- File:Zentral Stadion Leipzig 360° Panorama.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion alt.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion Leipzig 2008.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion leipzig rasen.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion Leipzig, Dankesveranstaltung zur WM 2006.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion panorama.jpg
- File:Zentralstadion-Main stand crowd.JPG
- File:Zentralstadion-Main stand.JPG
- File:Zentralstadion-Stand behind goal.JPG
- File:Länderspiel Deutschland - Kamerun.jpg
LGA talkedits 07:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep (basically) FOP only applies to copyright violations. Therefore the requester should a) describe the threshold of originality for the architectural elements shown in each photo and b) present arguments that each individual photo in fact violates the copyright; viz. it is not a "free adaptation" (freie Bearbeitung) in terms of § 24 UrhG. If the photo for example shows only a trivial view over a grandstand. As long as the requester can't provide these arguments for each photo, i would generally suggest to keep. --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep No need for FoP if no or only marginal copyrighted objects are visible. The visible architectur is rather functional and either marginal too or doesn't reach the threshold of originality necessary to protect it from beeing photographed.
- Please stop your round kick against each and every stadium and check if there is actually any copyright violated bevor your nominate pictures here! --Martin Kraft (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are copyrightable, these images all show architectural elements of the stadium, to release with a free licence you need the consent of the architect. LGA talkedits 07:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dear LGA, it is right that FOP applies to external appearance of buildings. But where there is no copyrightable work there is no copyright at all! It means FOP is totally irrelevant for photos that doesn't violate anyones copyright. Just because FOP doesn't apply to a specific image, it doesn't mean that the image ist a copyvio. 99% of all images on Commons doesn't fall under FOP. So please familiarize yourself with the principle of threshold of originality in architecture and § 24 UrhG (Free use) before making such comprehensive DR's. You have to examine each photo very thoroughly with respect to these two aspects. It is not possible to say, that generally all images of any (part of a) building is a copyright violation. This is simply wrong. Most of these interior images either missing copyrightable architectural elements or are free adaptions where the (probably) copyrightable nature of the original work is just negligible part of the photo. --Alexrk2 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have anything to support a high TOO regarding architecture in Germany ? There is few examples of architecture copyright protection being refused, there is one European case on a mas produced prefabricated houses in Finland; on the other hand there is this which would imply threshold of originality for applied art (of which architecture is one example) seems to be quite low in Germany. LGA talkedits 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- A comprehensive overview to the topic in Germany can be found here. For example look at OLG Karlsruhe, 03.06.2013 - 6 U 72/12 (Zu den Anforderungen an einen urheberrechtlichen Schutz eines Wohnhauses als Werk der Baukunst). The question of copyright is always a matter of common sense and can only be decided on case to case. A simple grandstand or ordinary steel framework wihtin a stadion definitly has no copyright. That is common sense. A remarkable roof construction or facade might be another case. But even though we consider the whole roof as copyrightable, then we have to look at the specific photo, whether it copies the noticeable characteristic of what makes the roof copyrightable. A birds eye view of the stadion I would probably consider as copyvio, because it will show the whole design of the characteristic roof. But if the photo on the other hand only shows a simple part of the roof (like the bearing structure underneath), then it is no copyvio (see § 24 UrhG "Free use"). --Alexrk2 (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you have anything to support a high TOO regarding architecture in Germany ? There is few examples of architecture copyright protection being refused, there is one European case on a mas produced prefabricated houses in Finland; on the other hand there is this which would imply threshold of originality for applied art (of which architecture is one example) seems to be quite low in Germany. LGA talkedits 22:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dear LGA, it is right that FOP applies to external appearance of buildings. But where there is no copyrightable work there is no copyright at all! It means FOP is totally irrelevant for photos that doesn't violate anyones copyright. Just because FOP doesn't apply to a specific image, it doesn't mean that the image ist a copyvio. 99% of all images on Commons doesn't fall under FOP. So please familiarize yourself with the principle of threshold of originality in architecture and § 24 UrhG (Free use) before making such comprehensive DR's. You have to examine each photo very thoroughly with respect to these two aspects. It is not possible to say, that generally all images of any (part of a) building is a copyright violation. This is simply wrong. Most of these interior images either missing copyrightable architectural elements or are free adaptions where the (probably) copyrightable nature of the original work is just negligible part of the photo. --Alexrk2 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Works of architecture are copyrightable, these images all show architectural elements of the stadium, to release with a free licence you need the consent of the architect. LGA talkedits 07:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: German FOP only applies to publically accessible locations FASTILY 08:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)