Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/26
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_+_EXO_joint_concert.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubble of the same pict in files MOSZCZ (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: You are right, my mistake, no reason to make it long, deleted Poco2 11:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
_%2B_EXO_joint_concert.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%2B_EXO_joint_concert.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
i want to rename photo description Ddexxel (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
_+_EXO_joint_concert.jpg){kind=link}
Keep: Use {{Rename}} instead. Deletion requests are requests to have a file deleted, while rename requests are requests to have a file renamed. It’s weird like that. -- Tuválkin ✉ 05:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete No license given, image from copyrighted site. --레비Revi 08:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
_+_EXO_joint_concert.jpg){kind=link}
Image is all rights served. Natuur12 (talk) 13:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 14:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Please delite, this is not an officel sighn in Germany and the uploader of the image was not the same person as in the discription. Please block the uploader I blocked him in the de. WP too. Itti (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 19:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Can someone delete the prior version of this image, which shows the plate #? The owner requested that the number be removed, which has happened but the old version is still in the history Sphilbrick (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have edited the image so the plate is not visible any more. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, the image edited by Goran is fine, it is the original here I would like removed.--Sphilbrick (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 
Done OK? McZusatz (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Source is not the image JurgenNL (talk) 21:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Source fixed. I'm sorry.--Ben Skála (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - source fixed, correct license. JurgenNL (talk) 21:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: Revoked by nominator. Jcb (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation from [1] A.Savin 23:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: That's a speedy deletion as a copyright violation in my book; therefore closing this DR as deleted. odder (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Leoboudv as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This uploader has too many copyright violations for Commons to consider this image to be own work. Yann (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This is probably PD-Art. Yann (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll retag it and remove my objections in this DR...but this uploader has many copyright violations. Please note. --Leoboudv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Fastily has deleted all files uploaded by this user. Some files may need to be taken to COM:UR. For example, the file name File:Re Federico Augusto III di Sassonia con il Kronprinz Federico Guglielmo di Prussia.jpg contains it:Federico Augusto III (1670-1733). --Stefan4 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @Stefan4: Well, this file is a picture, and since photography was only invented more than one century after his death, he can't be on it. ;o) Yann (talk) 06:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 06:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 06:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
some sources missing McZusatz (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Some sources are missing and the other sources have All Rights Reserved licenses. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyright violations Ronhjones (Talk) 01:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Not used küñall (nütramyen) 07:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
File:I am Faiz Muhammad Mughal and in this image it is my personal LED TV 2013-12-20 12-33.jpg
[edit]
This image is blurry and out of COM:SCOPE Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 07:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Low quality penis photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, low quality penis photo, see COM:PENIS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PDD - previously deleted dick. Same cock, different day. Batteries not included Alison ❤ 08:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal image. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
duplicate file Antemister (talk) 12:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind if this is deleted, but should the pages that use this file be changed back to point to the copy at File:Emblem of Somaliland.svg? Or is it enough to redirect it to the overwritten file? SiBr4 (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Should be, but Commons:GlobalReplace does not work at the moment on my computer. The admin has to use CommonsDelinker or create a redirect.--Antemister (talk) 10:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 07:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE 레비Revi 08:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
One of the images is NC on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/travfotos/6122595910/) McZusatz (talk) 13:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- McZusatz, It's according to Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic (CC BY-NC 2.0) licence. Therefore, it is free to Share and Adapt. I used it for a NonCommercial purpose and I gave appropriate credit to the creator. FaraM (talk) 03:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's true. However, we can not host NonCommercial content on Wikimedia Commons. --McZusatz (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version of the montage image with an image under the GNU Free Documentation License. FaraM (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so far. However the other image is NC as well. Furthermore you should also update the sources. --McZusatz (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get the rationale as apparently there is a double standard in Wikimedia! In some photo montage (for example: This) there are some images which are under copy right, but there is no objection against using them, while it is not accepted if I use NC free use photos for a montage. FaraM (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could not find a photo with an unfree license in your link above. As the policy is quite clear on non-commercial licenses, this montage is going to be deleted soon. --McZusatz (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I removed all flickr photos from the montage and replaced them with wikipedia and wikimedia commons. FaraM (talk) 01:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I could not find a photo with an unfree license in your link above. As the policy is quite clear on non-commercial licenses, this montage is going to be deleted soon. --McZusatz (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't get the rationale as apparently there is a double standard in Wikimedia! In some photo montage (for example: This) there are some images which are under copy right, but there is no objection against using them, while it is not accepted if I use NC free use photos for a montage. FaraM (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks so far. However the other image is NC as well. Furthermore you should also update the sources. --McZusatz (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version of the montage image with an image under the GNU Free Documentation License. FaraM (talk) 13:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's true. However, we can not host NonCommercial content on Wikimedia Commons. --McZusatz (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: looks ok. Thx McZusatz (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
At least two source files have been deleted. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:44, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 06:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright Issues Param Mudgal (talk) 13:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Ebraminio JuTa 22:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
File is the same as the one nominated here. Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 07:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 16:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Quality, project scope. Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 13:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, low quality, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unused image of extremely low quality Ю. Данилевский (talk) 19:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, I can't even tell what this photo is supposed to show. Nonetheless it's outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 07:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, unused personal image, outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:Black Tusk
[edit]- File:Northland shaft and trench.jpg
- File:Northland James Lake south shore.jpg
- File:Northland open-cut north.jpg
- File:Northland open-cut.jpg
- File:Northland rock waste.jpg
- File:Northland waste water.jpg
My listed personal photos are no longer free. Since they are my property I have the right to remove them from Wikimedia Commons. --Black Tusk (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep As the user has removed the previously valid license. Several of the images are in use and well within scope.Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually it isn't valid because they are no longer free. And no there are no articles that use the images. I should not need to argue to remove my own work off a website. Black Tusk (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Speedy Kept - Files were made available under a free license and this is irrevocable. Files are in scope too.--Denniss (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by DanielCPlm (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:Layser.jpg
- File:Ocasal.jpg
- File:Lindezadalayse.jpg
- File:Asirmãs.jpg
- File:O casal.jpg
- File:Bonita.jpg
- File:As irmãs.jpg
- File:Layse criança.jpg
Jcb (talk) 01:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pamelanoemisilva (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE, low resolution.
레비Revi 03:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete both. Agree they are out of scope. küñall (nütramyen) 05:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot with watermark from [2] here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't see a copyright notice on the source site, but I don;t see a license either. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot from [3] here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Less than 50 years old, this program or book cover is probably still copyrighted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
While this image has been placed in use on several wiki pages, it is of very small size and low quality, it has no helpful meta data and is likely copied from a program or book, not the uploader's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: It is in use, so we can not delete for quality reasons. It doesn't show up in a Google search, but all four of the editor's other uploads have been blatant copyvios, so we can no longer assume good faith. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is found also [4] here where it is clearly labeled Copyright by CalTech 2013. Probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is in use [5] here clearly labeled copyright 2006 Regents of the University of California. Probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Recognizable presumably living individual with no indication of permission. Title of piece shows intent. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This is unlikely to be the "own work" of the uploader. Instead it is a song created by Rudolf and Anton Hauptmann. One of the recordings was published in 1928, see here. It remains unclear whether this is already in the public domain. AFBorchert (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Die Behauptung, ich wollte mich als Autor des Liedes darstellen, ist an Lächerlichkeit schwer zu überbieten. Tatsächlich handelt es sich bei diesem Antrag lediglich um einen weiteren Versuch eines gewissen Photographenklüngels, mich als Initiator eines aktuellen Meinungsbildes (zum Thema Photolizenzen) einzuschüchtern. Beste Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- {{Own}} was given as source and Avstriakos as author. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sag einmal, stellst Du Dich so ... oder bist Du so ... - ? Es handelt sich um die Montage eines Ausschnittes eines Scans eines Notenblattes (Bearbeitung: Auflösung, Kontrast, Schärfe) mit einem Hintergrund sowie einem Text (= Übertragung aus den Textzeilen): Das ist my work! Natürlich habe ich das Lied nicht "komponiert"; derlei zu unterstellen ist ungefähr so intelligent, wie dem Photographen eines Bauwerks vorzuwerfen, er hätte das Gebäude nicht errichtet und dürfe deshalb das Bild nicht als 'sein Werk' ausgeben. Geht's noch? --Avstriakos (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Für das Notenblatt würden wir die Quelle benötigen. Und natürlich interessiert uns der urheberrechtliche Status dieses Scans. Es ist ein abgeleitetes Werk und da müssen wir natürlich auch die Urheberrechte davon in Betracht ziehen. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Natürlich: "Wir benötigen!" Und wenn ich die Semperoper photographiere, benötigst Du dann wahrscheinlich das Einverständnis des Architekten, gell? Oder wenn ich ein hundertfach appliziertes Plakat ablichte, die Genehmigung des Druckers und des Plakatierers ... Komm schon: Was soll der Unsinn - hast Du keine anderen Sorgen? --Avstriakos (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bei der Aufnahme der Semperoper ist es nicht notwendig wegen der Panoramafreiheit, aber in Ländern, bei denen keine Panoramafreiheit gilt (Übersicht ist hier) wie etwa in Frankreich wird dann auch durchaus gelöscht. Dies wird auch gelöscht werden, wenn der urheberrechtliche Status nicht geklärt wird. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Und wie soll das, bitteschön, funktionieren? Wer hat an einem vervielfältigten Notenblatt die Rechte? Wenn überhaupt, dann haben die Komponisten Rechte an dem Lied. Da Letzteres um 1900 entstand, kannst Du Dir ausrechnen, wie lange die beiden schon tot sind. --Avstriakos (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wenn Du das Notenblatt vervielfältigt hast, kannst Du doch bibliographische Angaben dazu machen, oder? Im übrigen spekulieren wir hier nicht über den urheberrechtlichen Status. Wer immer so etwas hochlädt, ist in der Pflicht, diesen Status zu klären. Gelingt dies nicht, wird gelöscht. Das ist so gängige Praxis auf Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Willst Du mich pflanzen? Nicht ich habe das Notenblatt vervielfältigt, sondern eine der Kopien herangezogen. Da drauf sind die Noten+Text und die Namen der Komponisten abgedruckt - sonst nichts! Was stellst Du Dir da unter "bibliographische Angaben" vor? Eine chemische Analyse des Papiers? Ich glaub's ja nicht ... --Avstriakos (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Notenblätter haben eine Herkunft und jemanden, der sie verfasst, herausgegeben und gedruckt hat. Wie hier ausgeführt wird, ist die Quelle jeweils anzugeben, weil es notwendig ist, um den urheberrechtlichen Status zu beurteilen. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Notenblätter haben eine Herkunft und jemanden, der sie verfasst, herausgegeben und gedruckt hat": In der Tat, davon darf man wohl ausgehen, so nicht Gott der Herr sie unvermittelt entstehen ließ. Nur, wie ich zuletzt schon dezent andeutete: WAS, WENN DAVON HINTEN UND VORNE NIX DRAUFSTEHT??? Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Und das Notenblatt wurde auf der Straße gefunden? Wie auch immer, das Problem bleibt, dass der urheberrechtliche Status sich so kaum klären lassen dürfte. Ich gebe mal ein Positivbeispiel, um zu zeigen, wie wir das hier erwarten: File:Brahms op53 Rhapsodie Partitur.pdf. Bei dieser Partitur ist erwähnt, welcher Ausgabe sie entstammt, wann sie veröffentlicht wurde und woher der Scan stammt. Der Text wurde dann übrigens über Wikisource erfasst. So sollte mit Noten und zugehörigen Texten umgegangen werden. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Zu Deinem angeblichen "Positivbeispiel": Dort steht drin: "Erstausgabe, Berlin 1870, Simrock'sche Musikhandlung; Colour scan with digital watermark". Das sind klare Informationen. Nur, daß sich bei meinem Notenblatt (zum zwölfunddreißgsten Mal ...) NICHTS DERGLEICHEN FINDET. Spielst Du ein Instrument? Warst Du jemals in Musikgeschäften, auf Flohmärkten o.ä., wo Du simple kopierte Zettel gekauft hast, weil Du einfach nur die Noten haben wolltest, um das Musikstück nachspielen zu können? Ich vermute stark: Nein. Denn sonst wüßtest Du, wie unsinnig hier die Forderung bezüglich Herkunftsnachweisen ist. Frag einmal ein paar Musiker, dann weißt Du, wovon ich rede. Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dann sehe ich hier aber keine Chance, dass diese Datei der Löschung entgeht. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keine Reflexion meiner letzten Ansage? Ah, verstehe: Wenn einem die Argumente ausgehen, kann man sich als "Admin" immer noch - qua Status, nichtwahr? - auf Drohungen zurückziehen. Bravo. Wie auch immer: Tu, was Du meinst, nicht lassen zu können; es wird sich später weisen, wie Mitarbeiter aus anderen Nationen die Agenda eines befangenen Deutschen hier beurteilen. Ansonsten: Mein Kompromißangebot gilt (siehe Disk). Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nachsatz: Ich werde mir in den nächsten Tagen das File anschauen und sämtliche Informationen, die ich dem Notenblatt entnehmen kann, dort nachtragen. Beste Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
- Dann sehe ich hier aber keine Chance, dass diese Datei der Löschung entgeht. Grüße, AFBorchert (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Zu Deinem angeblichen "Positivbeispiel": Dort steht drin: "Erstausgabe, Berlin 1870, Simrock'sche Musikhandlung; Colour scan with digital watermark". Das sind klare Informationen. Nur, daß sich bei meinem Notenblatt (zum zwölfunddreißgsten Mal ...) NICHTS DERGLEICHEN FINDET. Spielst Du ein Instrument? Warst Du jemals in Musikgeschäften, auf Flohmärkten o.ä., wo Du simple kopierte Zettel gekauft hast, weil Du einfach nur die Noten haben wolltest, um das Musikstück nachspielen zu können? Ich vermute stark: Nein. Denn sonst wüßtest Du, wie unsinnig hier die Forderung bezüglich Herkunftsnachweisen ist. Frag einmal ein paar Musiker, dann weißt Du, wovon ich rede. Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 22:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Und das Notenblatt wurde auf der Straße gefunden? Wie auch immer, das Problem bleibt, dass der urheberrechtliche Status sich so kaum klären lassen dürfte. Ich gebe mal ein Positivbeispiel, um zu zeigen, wie wir das hier erwarten: File:Brahms op53 Rhapsodie Partitur.pdf. Bei dieser Partitur ist erwähnt, welcher Ausgabe sie entstammt, wann sie veröffentlicht wurde und woher der Scan stammt. Der Text wurde dann übrigens über Wikisource erfasst. So sollte mit Noten und zugehörigen Texten umgegangen werden. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Notenblätter haben eine Herkunft und jemanden, der sie verfasst, herausgegeben und gedruckt hat": In der Tat, davon darf man wohl ausgehen, so nicht Gott der Herr sie unvermittelt entstehen ließ. Nur, wie ich zuletzt schon dezent andeutete: WAS, WENN DAVON HINTEN UND VORNE NIX DRAUFSTEHT??? Grüße, --Avstriakos (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Notenblätter haben eine Herkunft und jemanden, der sie verfasst, herausgegeben und gedruckt hat. Wie hier ausgeführt wird, ist die Quelle jeweils anzugeben, weil es notwendig ist, um den urheberrechtlichen Status zu beurteilen. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Willst Du mich pflanzen? Nicht ich habe das Notenblatt vervielfältigt, sondern eine der Kopien herangezogen. Da drauf sind die Noten+Text und die Namen der Komponisten abgedruckt - sonst nichts! Was stellst Du Dir da unter "bibliographische Angaben" vor? Eine chemische Analyse des Papiers? Ich glaub's ja nicht ... --Avstriakos (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wenn Du das Notenblatt vervielfältigt hast, kannst Du doch bibliographische Angaben dazu machen, oder? Im übrigen spekulieren wir hier nicht über den urheberrechtlichen Status. Wer immer so etwas hochlädt, ist in der Pflicht, diesen Status zu klären. Gelingt dies nicht, wird gelöscht. Das ist so gängige Praxis auf Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Und wie soll das, bitteschön, funktionieren? Wer hat an einem vervielfältigten Notenblatt die Rechte? Wenn überhaupt, dann haben die Komponisten Rechte an dem Lied. Da Letzteres um 1900 entstand, kannst Du Dir ausrechnen, wie lange die beiden schon tot sind. --Avstriakos (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bei der Aufnahme der Semperoper ist es nicht notwendig wegen der Panoramafreiheit, aber in Ländern, bei denen keine Panoramafreiheit gilt (Übersicht ist hier) wie etwa in Frankreich wird dann auch durchaus gelöscht. Dies wird auch gelöscht werden, wenn der urheberrechtliche Status nicht geklärt wird. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Natürlich: "Wir benötigen!" Und wenn ich die Semperoper photographiere, benötigst Du dann wahrscheinlich das Einverständnis des Architekten, gell? Oder wenn ich ein hundertfach appliziertes Plakat ablichte, die Genehmigung des Druckers und des Plakatierers ... Komm schon: Was soll der Unsinn - hast Du keine anderen Sorgen? --Avstriakos (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Für das Notenblatt würden wir die Quelle benötigen. Und natürlich interessiert uns der urheberrechtliche Status dieses Scans. Es ist ein abgeleitetes Werk und da müssen wir natürlich auch die Urheberrechte davon in Betracht ziehen. --AFBorchert (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Sag einmal, stellst Du Dich so ... oder bist Du so ... - ? Es handelt sich um die Montage eines Ausschnittes eines Scans eines Notenblattes (Bearbeitung: Auflösung, Kontrast, Schärfe) mit einem Hintergrund sowie einem Text (= Übertragung aus den Textzeilen): Das ist my work! Natürlich habe ich das Lied nicht "komponiert"; derlei zu unterstellen ist ungefähr so intelligent, wie dem Photographen eines Bauwerks vorzuwerfen, er hätte das Gebäude nicht errichtet und dürfe deshalb das Bild nicht als 'sein Werk' ausgeben. Geht's noch? --Avstriakos (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- {{Own}} was given as source and Avstriakos as author. --AFBorchert (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Mal zurück auf Feld 1. Rudolf Hauptmann lebte 1864-04-01 bis 1937-04-12.[6] Anton Hauptmann war dessen Vater; da Rudolf 73 Jahre alt wurde, können wir wohl annehmen, dass der Vater vor 1937 starb. Was Texter und Komponist angeht ist dieses Lied also in DACH gemeinfrei. Das Flugblatt mit ebendiesem Notensatz wurde von Franz Christ, Wiener Arion-Verlag, herausgegeben.[7][8] Keine Jahresangabe; dürfte aber etwa frühe 1940er Jahre sein. (Vgl. dazu [9] und [10]: dieser Verlag nummerierte seine Notenblätter. W.A.V. 176 wurde 1942 gedruckt; "unser" Notenblatt hier ist W.A.V. 160.) Bearbeitet wurde die Komposition dann noch von einem Franz Reinhard (Gitarrenakkorde). Der Text selbst ist in DACH gemeinfrei, ebenso Rudolf Hauptmanns Komposition dazu. Somit bleiben drei Fragen:
- Ist der Notensatz an sich urheberrechtlich geschützt?
- Was sind die Lebensdaten von Franz Reinhard? Falls dieser vor weniger als 70 Jahren verstarb, ist diese Version wohl noch nicht gemeinfrei in Österreich. (Eine andere Version ohne Reinhards Akkorde aber durchaus.)
- Wann wurde das Lied zum ersten Mal veröffentlicht? Falls nach 1923, wäre es in den USA nicht public domain, da es 1996 in Österreich noch nicht gemeinfrei war.
- Lupo 23:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](http://www.volksmusik.cc/lieder/flugblaetter/LokaleAusdruecke2.JPG){kind=link}
![[8]](http://www.volksmusik.cc/lieder/flugblaetter/LokaleAusdruecke1.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: The original, without the guitar chords, was published in 1905, see http://gramofon.nava.hu/en/1803565003/lokale_ausdrucke. However, the guitar chords certainly have a copyright of their own. There is a Franz Reinhard born 1968 who is a composer, including guitar, but this looks too old for that. His father taught him, so that's a better guess, but still just a guess. In any event, the guitar chords must have been added after 1905, so they are too recent for us to assume that this is out of copyright in Austria, much less the US. It is up to the uploader to prove beyond a significant doubt that all of the copyright holders died before 1944, which has not been done.
I applaud AFBorchert for his patience. User:Avstriakos should not have claimed "own work" at all, because there is no copyright in a scan.
Thanks to User:Lupo for bringing us back to the main point and finding the dates of the composers of the original score.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
O9DNID FIF 186.93.123.239 00:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: does not sound like a valid reason for deletion Ymblanter (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This picture, Hellion (1).jpg was published [11] here and several other places. The meta data does not show creation information. It is most likely a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The photo's where given to me by the photographer, I was told they are mine and I have all rights to them.MDSanker 02:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- "I was told they are mine" does not meet the requirements for transfer of ownership set out in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 204 which establishes that all transfers of copyright be done in writing. Oral transfers are not valid in the United States. According to your description of events, you have uploaded copyrighted images to Wikicommons which you do not have a legal right to sub-license. DocumentError (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete - copyright violation, especially in light of additional information provided by uploader (see his comment above) DocumentError (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image also appears here [12] previously published and with no indication that the photos on that page are intended to be of free use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is same as image [13] here which is labled copyright 2013 Microsoft Corporation. Probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image appears on many websites including [14] here. It is a catalog image and probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image appears [15] here, clearly marked ©2013 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., all rights reserved. Probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This watermarked image is the same as [16] here where there is no indication that the image is for free use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is the same as one [17] here with no indication that uploader has the rights to the photo, nor does the page give free rights to the photos on it. Probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of an application. No proof that photo in screenshot is copyright to the uploader either. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Originally tagged as 'no permission'. Reason turns out to be the text of the sign. I think the text is DM. Any other thoughts? Jcb (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The file name tells that the entire purpose of the image is the sign. Also, the only purpose of the sign is the text. The text can therefore impossibly satisfy COM:DM. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete The sign was erected in 1996. There is no FOP in the US for text on signs. Furthermore, there is no verifiable, tangible evidence from a credible source proving that the text of the sign is freely licensed under a Commons-compatiable license -FASTILY 01:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The Video is from youtube. Its the time from 05:04 to the end of the youtube-video 217.246.195.97 01:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This file is from 1939 and has a COM:URAA Problem. 217.246.195.97 01:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A related image, File:Dogecoinwallet.jpg, also contains the aforementioned image within it, and is uploaded under a free license. This usage does not qualify for Commons:De minimis. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 02:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Derivative work of non-free content. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The related image File:Dogecoinwallet.jpg also contains the aforementioned image within it, and is uploaded under a free license. This usage does not qualify for Commons:De minimis. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 02:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation, original author of this photograph is Kabosu. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 02:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dogecoin logo.png (identical image). -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 02:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio against https://pic1.zhimg.com/80/2f94066a327c552016d6e04ab335e49b_hd.jpg which was originally a Sina Weibo Emoji (See design story here https://www.zhihu.com/question/26982136/answer/107640808 in Chinese, and see https://blog.emojipedia.org/who-owns-emoji/ for an interpretation on emoji copyright) C933103 (talk) 08:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Too simple to be a derivative work. --Yann (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Probably copyvio see http://allysonglado.com/photos/ Mattho69 (talk) 02:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Web3os Si vous êtes le deteneur du copyright, il vous faut envoyer un e-mail conforme à Commons:OTRS/fr, et après cela ajouter {{OTRS pending}} dans la page du fichier --Havang(nl) (talk) 18:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermark, no permission. Yann (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Violation of copyright http://gwen-perez.com/book-photo/ Mattho69 (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Violation of copyright http://gwen-perez.com/book-photo/ Mattho69 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unsure of photo's copyright status. We hope (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Photo comes from A Certain Cinema which says its content is under copyright. No information is given about the origin of the photo. We hope (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't see the "research carried out to find who the author was", which is required to use the PD-UK-unknown template, anywhere in the file description. So it is far from certain that the author of this image is really unknown. Rosenzweig τ 03:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- That is true as well for File:Freda Dudley Ward01.jpg (by Frank Arthur Swaine (d. 1952)). --Rosenzweig τ 03:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- And for File:Freda Dudley Ward - 1918.JPG (by Bertram Park (1883-1972)). --Rosenzweig τ 03:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [18]. Yann (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
![[18]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=177316425#File:Freda_Dudley_Ward.jpg){kind=link}
This image was created by a long-term vandal on en.Wikipedia with no purpose other than to use it in vandalizing templates. Howicus (talk) 04:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Complicated, but I am not sure... 레비Revi 08:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
it is not mine Kimanhly (talk) 08:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
BadJPG, unused, replaceable by File:Bromacia benzenu.png DMacks (talk) 09:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
this image is the exact copy (with the same filename) of this image. No evidence original image is free. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
copyright violation:http://vidaenaccionradio.com/marco-barrientos-presenta-transformados/ Grzegorznadolski (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, part of a row of copyvios regarding en:Pablo Escobar by Wuppi (talk · contributions · Statistics) Gunnex (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
copyright violation: http://www.justjared.com/2012/07/03/cristiano-ronaldo-irina-shayk-yacht-ride-with-cristiano-jr/ Grzegorznadolski (talk) 11:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked. Gunnex (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
not wanted 94.173.203.1 11:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep all 9 images are taken from established files. this image is in use, so its "wanted". a similar selection may "replace" this image at any particular article, but that doesnt mean we remove this one. We dont have so many montages of this subject as to start to require us to remove redundant and/or lower quality images of its type. Cups of coffee, we have too many of, those are examples of errors of judgement.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Mercurywoodrose rationale.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep as above 175.37.36.200 12:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
to protect from children 54.217.176.86 10:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Children come from vulvas, you moron. -- Tuválkin ✉ 06:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion Ymblanter (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
copyright violation:http://en.hdhod.com/Romania-opens-Ceausescu-execution-spot-to-public_a11003.html Grzegorznadolski (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
According to Brazilian copyright law: "Works permanently located in public places may be freely represented by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes.". However, this is a temporary exposition, and therefore not allowed under Brazilian law. Darwin Ahoy! 12:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
In line with the Pricasso resolution, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv, I see no reason why Obama should be treated with any less courtesy than Jimmy Wales. Fæ (talk) 13:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, if for no other reason, then because the licensing status is more than unclear - there is no evidence presented (e.g. in the form of a webcitation of the 4chan thread where it was posted) that it was actually released under the stated license. darkweasel94 16:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal art work, not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
NOTE: FILE HAS BEEN MOVED TO File:"Joker" graffiti in Amsterdam.jpg DURING THIS DISCUSSION.
In line with the Pricasso resolution, see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Jimmy_Wales_by_Pricasso_(the_making_of).ogv, I see no reason why Obama should be treated with any less courtesy than Jimmy Wales. Fæ (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Each discussion has its own merits. This file should be kept because it has an educational purpose, that is to illustrate real life contemporary graffiti, which is an increasingly popular form of art. You are also assuming that the subject depicted in this artwork is President Barack Obama, though nowhere in the file name, nor the description, does it state that it is him. To me this looks more like the Joker than it does Obama. (And the guy's face is white!) And even if it were Obama, shouldn't we believe in free speech and anti-censorship? The Pricasso case involved a hired artist using his penis to paint a portrait of Jimmy Wales. We don't see penises here, do we? And thus, the reference to the Pricasso resolution is irrelevant. Cheers, ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 10:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment You don't see penises mentioned in the Pricasso Resolution either. Category:Living_people-related_deletion_requests is going to be quite ominous in the future though. russavia (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep -He is a public figure and it is a form of art. No need to delete this. Natuur12 (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - each nomination stand on its own (the reason mentioned in the JW nomination was often out of scope). Wikipedia also describes the critical responses of people concerning presidents as Wikipedia is to be neutral and describing both sides. This image can be used very well in a Dutch article on critics on Obama, as well as in an article like political graffiti, and more. So the image is in scope en I see no reason for deletion. Romaine (talk) 14:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment - Apart from the Pricasso/Jimbo matter, is the license for this image actually valid? This is a long chain of derivative works;
- A photograph of Barack Obama taken by Platon for Time Magazine. link
- Firas Khateeb uploads an alteration of that image to Flickr. link
- Someone in Australia (I cannot make out the signature at the bottom) paints a derivative of Kahteeb's photoshopped image on a public wall.
- Steve Collis photographs the painting and uploads it to Flickr. link
- That photograph is uploaded to the Commons.
- Tarc (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Everything from point 3 down should be unproblematic, per COM:FOP#Netherlands (at least the geotag says it is in Amsterdam) and the fact that the Flickr photo is freely licensed. But if the painting is itself a copyvio of something else, that's a good point. darkweasel94 15:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep COM:POINT. --Conti|✉ 15:15, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File should be deleted because it is not accurate. Jlosullivan (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
useless without a descriptipon 91.66.153.214 13:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
derivative work 91.66.153.214 13:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
joke, probably out of scope 91.66.153.214 13:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Own work seems dubious, and even if so, the background fails COM:DM. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No indication of permission from the probable copyright owner, the photographer, Paul Bernhard. No indication that the uploader, Hr034, is the copyright owner. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Derative work of one of those pony's. Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Version von 13:12 sollte gelöscht werden, weil redundant MagentaGreen (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Version von 13:00 sollte gelöscht werden, weil redundant MagentaGreen (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 17:01, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
uploader has taken a photo from facebook, twitter,tumblr.... 91.66.153.214 15:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Bitte löschen, da nicht alle verpixelt. Bin Hochlader. Reclus (talk) 15:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image from a 1995 application is tagged with the patent copyright tag, which only applies to pre-1989 patent publications (when the copyright notice requirement would have been in effect). If the result is deletion, this image should be uploaded to enwiki as it would satisfy NFCC. RJaguar3 (talk) 16:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Porque esta erroneo Itsasolf (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Posting an advertisement image into Flickr as CC-BY doesn't make it free. Damiens.rf 17:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeing the watermark, probably not own work. Yann (talk) 18:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unused (except in ancient discussion of options for images of this compound) obsolete format; have svg and high-res png in Category:Sinapic acid DMacks (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 16:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Possibly out of project scope; not usable for educational purposes. High Contrast (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Is in use and is of usable quality. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
it's not a good picture Borjanaarsova (talk) 20:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
it's not a good picture Borjanaarsova (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Upload da foto errada. Denis Morais (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of date: Croatia is now a member of the EU LadyGodiva99 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: could be used to illustrate historical development Ymblanter (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I know that these two sentences would have a copyright in the USA. I don't know what the threshold for literary works is in Canada, but we need to consider it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep IMO, this is not a literary work and not a quote, only a caption for the dedication of a public garden. I would keep.--Jebulon (talk) 00:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Literary work" is very broadly defined in copyright law. Computer software is copyrighted as a "literary work". As I noted above, this would clearly be above the ToO in the USA as a literary work as described in the USCO's Copyright Basics, page 3. Whether it would be in Canada, I don't know. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I challenge the adverb clearly in the sentence “this would clearly be above the ToO in the USA”: the epitaph contains only short phrases and is factual, and facts aren't copyrigthed, there are common property. To consider this text a creation, you have to offer the explanation it goes beyond the mere stating of dates and facts, and in this case, the adverb clearly is not welcome. --Dereckson (talk) 12:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Literary work" is very broadly defined in copyright law. Computer software is copyrighted as a "literary work". As I noted above, this would clearly be above the ToO in the USA as a literary work as described in the USCO's Copyright Basics, page 3. Whether it would be in Canada, I don't know. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by my wording. Copyright Basics excludes only "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents". We have two complete sentences here. "Femme d'action et de compassion" is true, but it is not a fact --- it is the opinion of the writer expressed in the writer's chosen words. The second sentence is the same. This is far from a "mere listing". Please remember that writing a one or two sentence epitaph is much harder than writing a paragraph or two, which is why the copyright law (in the US at least) gives copyright to even a single sentence. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "short phrases"? This is exactly that: 2 short phrases. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I beg to differ: the amount of words (116) in your explanation, with words like “but” shows the adverb clearly isn't the most suitable. --Dereckson (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- "short phrases"? This is exactly that: 2 short phrases. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I stand by my wording. Copyright Basics excludes only "titles, names, short phrases, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering, or coloring; mere listings of ingredients or contents". We have two complete sentences here. "Femme d'action et de compassion" is true, but it is not a fact --- it is the opinion of the writer expressed in the writer's chosen words. The second sentence is the same. This is far from a "mere listing". Please remember that writing a one or two sentence epitaph is much harder than writing a paragraph or two, which is why the copyright law (in the US at least) gives copyright to even a single sentence. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- So, if I write: " this is a very nice example of waste of time and absurdity ", my sentence is copyrighted according to the US law ? OK. Have a nice end of the year, and enjoy the company of friends and family...--Jebulon (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not. --Dereckson (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, in Belgium, titles of work are protected, so this could be copyrighted outside US. But of course, the protection only forbids similar works to use the same title (for example if you publish a work with “this is a very nice example of waste of time and absurdity”, a similar but not infringing work will be an infringement if titled “this is a very nice example of waste of time and ludicrousness”). In France, a website title is an element of the work (TGI Paris, 29 mai 2001) --Dereckson (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, it's not. --Dereckson (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: 1 for deletion, 3 for keeping, including mine. No consensus to delete. Yann (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Grzegorznadolski as Copyvio (copyvio) but {{PD-textlogo}} may apply. Jcb (talk) 21:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Mistake. Should have been: Category:Stedelijk Gymnasium Leiden Vysotsky (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done. But: Please read scope of COM:DR. Gunnex (talk) 23:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: fixed, no reason to delete Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
A question: This image was uploaded to Commons 9 months ago with a claim that the author placed it into the public domain but it is not even on the facebook link. The uploader only has 4 images on Commons. Is the permission valid..and did the author own the rights over this image? Leoboudv (talk) 22:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: allready deleted. JuTa 21:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of COM:SCOPE küñall (nütramyen) 23:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment by uploader: Photos of exclusive private property and registered (The picture has nothing wrong)
- Está fuera del foco del proyecto Wiki Commons, intente subirla a Flickr u otro sitio en su lugar. (This picture is out of the scope of the Wikimedia Commons project, try uploading it to Flickr or another website instead). küñall (nütramyen) 00:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Personal image, not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
delete/ false file Antonfrei (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No file by that name. Yann (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Henri Langlois
[edit]COM:FOP#France - the guy only died in 1977, so no way is his grave's architect dead 70yrs,
- File:Langlois1 D6.jpg
- File:Langlois2 D6.jpg
- File:Langlois3 D6.jpg
- File:Langlois4 D6.jpg
- File:Paris - Cimetière du Montparnasse - Henri Langlois.jpg
- File:Tombe Henri Langlois, Cimetière du Montparnasse.jpg
- File:Tombe Henri Langlois.jpg
-mattbuck (Talk) 14:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Caloricafans (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images in the frame seems to be copyrighted.
레비Revi 07:52, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
unfree images from the web, uploader has uploaded AP photo as "own work" before
- File:Casa rojas.jpg (http://venezuela.bienesonline.com/ficha-apartamento-venta-caraballeda-vargas_APV28481.php)
- File:Playas caraballeda.jpg
- File:Plamaroeste1999.jpg (http://water.usgs.gov/venezuela/)
- File:Playacaraballeda.jpg
- File:Fachada Sur caraballeda.jpg
- File:Panormica yachts club.jpg
- File:Cayosal.jpg (http://www.epsilondive.com/puntos.php?id=17)
- File:Palmar este.jpg
- File:Infravargas24121.jpg
- File:Los corales4.gif
- File:Campo Golf.jpg
- File:VirgendeCarballeda.jpg (http://hijosdelteleno.blogspot.de/2009/09/de-la-virgen-de-la-carballeda-otras.html)
- File:Caraballeda.png (http://www.skyscraperlife.com/city-versus-city/31051-caracas-vs-s%E3o-paulo-5.html)
Polarlys (talk) 09:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Turban - Museum Carmen Miranda.jpg
- File:Turban - Carmen Miranda.jpg
- File:Xuxa in 2011.jpg
- File:Ivete Sangalo in the Madison Square Garden.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
These three images are book covers, unlikely to be free images.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
These photos have been previously published on other sites, probable WP:COPYVIO.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by O Seridoense (talk · contribs)
[edit]After today identifying several uploads from 11./12.2013 as copyvio it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Most likely one of the socks of Rubenbreezy = Srmgmty/Mrmgmty --> all recently "active" at Caicó (a Brazilian municipality) and per edit/upload behaviour at ptwiki/Commons.
Gunnex (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rockidrave (talk · contribs)
[edit]All five of these images can be found [22] here. Probable COM:COPYVIO.
- File:Makoto Yuasa.jpg
- File:Fumikazu Nishitani.jpg
- File:Noriyuki Imanishi.jpg
- File:Jirou Ishimaru.jpg
- File:Akira Ishii.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely cropped from unknown source.
Gunnex (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Update: Most likely sock puppet of Category:Sockpuppets of Rubenbreezy. Gunnex (talk) 22:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Victimoflove97 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probably copyvio. Most lack exif and I found a color version of File:Reggie Sears 2013 Press Shot.jpg.
- File:ReggieSears2003.jpg
- File:Reggie Sears 2013 Press Shot.jpg
- File:S4010020.jpg
- File:Southern Soul, Florida Style tour.jpg
- File:Reggie12yo.jpg
- File:Reggie Sears 2006.jpg
- File:Reggie Sears Live March 2013.png
Jcb (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wikiyoungblack (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of personal images not in use on the project and outside the scope of the project. There is no clear indication that the uploader is either the photographer or the subject of the photos and the titles indicate a social media turn of mind.
- File:Churckyrose.jpg
- File:Kidchurckyray.jpg
- File:Swaggchurcky.jpg
- File:Churcky3ans.jpg
- File:Kidchurcky1.jpg
- File:Kidchurcky.jpg
- File:Emperorkid.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by محمد مشيرب (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two of these images are identical, all four are screenshots, complete with subtitling and upper right hand corner watermarking. Possible COM:COPYVIO.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:15, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The photograph is obviously by a person called "Hoizge"; no permission for a free release given by the uploader High Contrast (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ich habe den Autor geändert auf "Hoizge", habe ich übersehen; das Foto ist frei verfügbar im Internet, siehe: http://www.mitmachkinderlieder.de/veranstalterundpresse.html; Passt jetzt alles oder muss ich noch was ändern? --Uhlemair (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nein, eigentlich passt (noch) nichts. Bist du derjenige, der dieses Foto gemacht hat? --High Contrast (talk) 15:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Found no free license at the provided website and I see no evidence that the uploader is the copyrightholder since High Contrasts question remained unawnsered. If you are the copyrightholder, please send permsission to com:OTRS. If the permission is sufficiant the file will be restored. Natuur12 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
The two images which show four Vanderbilt helmets come from EA Sports' teambuilder website (search for Vanderbilt; the helmets may have been culled from separate submissions there). The two showing a single version, while undoubtedly reworked by the uploader, are unfortunately still derivative of a Green Bay helmet graphic available all over the web (such as here). It's possible there is a free ancestor, but I can't find it.
Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILYs (TALK) 20:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Images of various qualities and sizes with no metadata, some of which were found on other websites, specifically:
- Hellion (2).jpg was published [23] here and several other places.
- Hellion (1).jpg was published [24] here and several other places.
- Hellion (4).jpg was published [25] here and several other places.
All the images were last handled by PaintShop Pro and appear to be a gallery of fan art.
- File:Hellion (1).jpg
- File:Hellion (2).jpg
- File:Hellion (3).jpg
- File:Hellion (4).jpg
- File:Hellion (5).jpg
- File:Hellion (6).jpg
- File:Hellion (7).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Hellion Photos
[edit]The original Hellion photos where sent to me by email by the photographer, I was told they where mine to publish.I was not aware that they where on other web sits.MDSanker 02:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- "I was told they are mine" does not meet the requirements for transfer of ownership set out in 17 U.S.C. Sec. 204 which establishes that all transfers of copyright be done in writing. Oral transfers are not valid in the United States. According to your description of events, you have uploaded copyrighted images to Wikicommons which you do not have a legal right to sub-license. DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete - copyright violation, especially in light of additional information provided by uploader (see his comment above) DocumentError (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a pro-forma DR - I urge closing the DR as a keep. The problem is that I just removed {{PD-USGov}} from both of these because the sculptor, John Wilson, was not a Federal employee. It was unveiled in 1986. SIRIS shows no evidence of a copyright notice, but that is not always reliable. Nonetheless, I would put {{PD-US-no notice}} on it, but I don't think I can do that without discussion by the community.
Also: File:MLK Bust Capitol.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment US-no-notice does not apply, because it can be used only for pre-1978 works. Probably you mean {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Taivo (talk) 11:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you. {{PD-US-1978-89}} is correct, . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Bust was created in 1980s and the photo was found on U.S. federal government site. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep with {{PD-US-1978-89}} per above. If a reasonable effort has been made to find a copyright filing, and nobody is claiming one was made, I believe it is safe to assume there was no copyright filing. -Pete F (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mateusz576 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Exceeds threshold or originality. All of these consist of complex shapes and/or gradients, which, IMO are not PD-ineligible.
- File:TV Polonia najstarsze.png
- File:Polo TV.png
- File:TVN 7 HD Logo.jpg
- File:TVN 7 nowe logo.jpg
- File:Puls 3.png
- File:Polo TV.jpg
- File:Polo TV 1.jpg
- File:Puls logo 1.svg
FASTILY 01:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - {{PD-textlogo}} applies - File:Puls 3.png was kept by you in a previous DR? - Jcb (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- See my reply and thorough refutal of this argument, here -FASTILY 09:43, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Using Commons:Deletion_requests/File:I_don't_travel_to_eSStonia.jpg and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-06#File:I_don.27t_travel_to_eSStonia.jpg for guidance, these images should indeed be deleted. russavia (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would like to Keep both Puls logos and Delete the rest. Both Puls logos were kept in the past through regular deletion request. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know where the Polish ToO is, so I'm not closing this, but I don' think any of them would have a copyright in the USA. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I kept Puls files since they were rather simple and previous DR kept them, but other files seem more complicated and perchaps cross the threshold of originality Jarekt (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)