Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/12/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
_2013-12-26_17-59.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_Purpur-Fruchtwanze,_Carpocoris_purpureipennis.test.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-12-27_14-21.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Empty. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 13:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
frohe weihnachten 2003:64:AF0B:6D00:6592:4FA0:3F95:845E 12:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: nonsense DR Trijnsteltalk 13:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader - identical image appears at http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?182706-Myanmar-Junta-military-photos/page8 MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mass deleted. New upload created account and immidiatly started mass uploading stolen content. Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikley to be the work of the uploader who has uploaded a number of random sized images of various quality probably copied from the internet - refer to user other uploads MilborneOne (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mass deleted. New upload created account and immidiatly started mass uploading stolen content. Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Unlikley to be the work of the uploader who has uploaded a number of random sized images of various quality probably copied from the internet - refer to user other uploads MilborneOne (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mass deleted. New upload created account and immidiatly started mass uploading stolen content. Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This had a {{Speedy}} but I don't think it is eligible. The question is, is it a legitimate political poster, which is something we host regularly, however much we do or don't like the content, or was it created by the uploader solely for the purpose of disruption? If the former, it is not only not a {{Speedy}}, it may be a keeper. If the latter, it is regular delete, because we don't keep personal art by non-notable artists.
User:Codename Lisa tells me that it is being used for disruption on WP:EN. I also note that it has no source, author, or license.
Perhaps I am being too careful here -- I certainly won't object of one of my colleagues decides to delete it immediately.
Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete as it is now. No source, no license, no description. Yann (talk) 17:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted as clear vandalism per English Wikipedia's AN/I page. odder (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
URV von Bild.de Mauerquadrant (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: {{Copyvio}}. Martin H. (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
copyright! Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 02:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Found several places online in higher resolution. Probablr copyright violation. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I loaded the picture again. Greetings palickap (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: manipulated image of unknown source Denniss (talk) 00:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Done and thank you, new version is uploaded! --Hubertl (talk) 12:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: OK now. Yann (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Non-free content, image was taken in 1971 (42 years ago). Kmzayeem (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: agree Ymblanter (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
_2013-12-26_17-59.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-12-26_17-59.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Clearly not free to use Mattythewhite (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
_2013-12-26_17-59.jpg){kind=link}
- So why no request for Speedy deletion? Is ofcourse not a free image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. Yann (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
_2013-12-26_17-59.jpg){kind=link}
Clearly not free to use. Mattythewhite (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- So why no request for Speedy deletion? Is ofcourse not a free image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. Yann (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is found on multiple other websites, possible COM:COPYVIO, see [1] for images Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I would like to assure you that I am the owner if this image its copyright licensing. Please let me know if you would like evidence to support this claim.
This is an alt-weekly magazine cover (Alt Variety Magazine Issue 2, April 2013) for a magazine no longer being published. Possible COM:COPYVIO, is in use on article for creation about magazine. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC) Dear Sir or Madam, There is no copyright issues with this image as I am the owner of the image and of the magazine. Please undelete.
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is in use on several other webpages, appears to be an often-used thumbnail. Possible COM:COPYVIO see here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This band image is in use on other websites, see here for example. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is in use on dozens of travel sites worldwide, see here for others. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant copyright violation: http://www.focus.de/reisen/service/dubai_did_18145.html High Contrast (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot from video here, page marked "Copyright (c) 2013 by Vube". Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of computer screen. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image is out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image appears on multiple websites see here for others, the subject died in 1979. The image shows halftone marks indicating it is a scan/photo from a publication. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 12:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Commons is not a personal photo album, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This screen shot is a possible COM:COPYVIO, promotion or advertising. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
As shown by [2] google search, this is the same image which was deleted on 21 December, see here for more info. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
File is in use on multiple other webpages, see here for example. If it came from the page listed as the source, it's covered as "Copyright © 2013. All Rights Reserved." by that page, if it came from the other page, it's covered by © REJ Professional Services Corporation. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission to licence under free licence, this kind of uploads requires OTRS verification PierreSelim (talk) 09:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Image is in use on multiple other webpages, see here for examples. The description and title suggest the possibility of spoofing in addition to possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, and probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This professional quality headshot is in use on multiple other webpages see here for examples. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image of a performer is in use on multiple other websites, see here for examples, and is unlikely to be uploader's own work. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Image is found on many webpages, see here for samples, as well as on a website of the same name (minus the spaces) as the uploader of the image. Possible self or company promotion. User's other images are of other parts of distillation/sales of alcohol; one is also marked for deletion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of ownership. See http://www.tamilstar.com/photo-galleries/tamil-actor-actor-arjun-birthday-celebration-wallpapers/01-tamil-actor-actor-arjun-birthday-celebration-wallpapers-actor-arjun-birthday-celebration-wallpapers-actor-arjun-birthday-celebration-wallpapers.html. Bbb23 (talk) 01:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
The uploader at wikipedia said " The image is found on many sites, www.qantara.de , www.marcelkhalife.com and more." But is this image copyright free per Common's policies? Leoboudv (talk) 01:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Comment: The image is very small resolution and has no camera EXIF too. --Leoboudv (talk) 02:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Possibly out of scope. Features only the products of a brand and only used in the article about the brand which is already deleted. Lakokat (talk) 01:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons is not the place for product placements Marcus Cyron (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Image uploaded by a spam-account blocked at de.WP, obviously created by "picjoke.net", not "own work". FDMS (WP: en, de) 02:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also here, here and here. Kind regards. --Jivee Blau (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
copyvio. no own work Wer?Du?! (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
bad quality personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused bad quality personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 03:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Keep: Very interesting photo, on several aspects; apparently unique intersection of Category:Children playing and Category:Automobile interiors. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)- Delete Identifiable minors photographed in a private place; publication needs consent of parents/legal guardian. See COM:PEOPLE and COM:IDENT. Lupo 09:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion fetishists always use that double-edge knife ainst media showing children: If daddy took a picture, then delete it because it is a personal vanity offscope image, if dady didn’t, delete it all the same because, you know, kids are scary. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Bad quality, out of scope. And yes, special care should be taken about pictures of children. Yann (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a copyvio, stated at Flickr link to be from Arizona Highways magazine. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be a photo of a page from "Arizona Highways" magazine. Probably a copyvio. Pete Tillman (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
no longer being used on wikipedia page Tommybear14 (talk) 05:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
no longer being used on wikipedia page Tommybear14 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
COM:TOYS. COM:DW of a copyrighted character "Snuggle Bear". Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:28, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Weak keep Background plush bears are definitely Scènes à faire and are not under copyright. The one in front could potentially be creative enough, especially with that shirt design, but the design of the shirt is mostly hidden, and simply dressing a bear it clothes is trivial and does not warrant copyright protection. I would feel more comfortable if the shirt design was slightly blurred, however. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 12:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. Taivo (talk) 12:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
no longer being used on wikipedia page Tommybear14 (talk) 05:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
out of scope selfie, i.e. "not realistically usable for an educational purpose" Tortie tude (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously a Pakistani passport photo, the uploader is not the owner or the author. Officer (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
it is very inappropriate. Go-Myanmar (talk) 07:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Nomination by uploader shortly after having uploaded the file. Identifiable tourists in the image; in a situation where they may have at least some expectation of privacy. Lupo 09:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above + (c) watermark. Yann (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted: author - Lynette Cook, not NASA St1995 10:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted: author - Lynette Cook, not NASA. We really need OTRS permission. St1995 10:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Bad resolution; new version in JPG added. Vysotsky (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No good resolution; new version in JPG added. Vysotsky (talk) 11:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
want to give a new one Hrusmar (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Picking strawberries Mr Pyiiuui's orchard, Kelow-na, British Columbia (HS85-10-21212) original.tif
[edit]404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Upload/storage error, better ask the uploader to upload it again. --Denniss (talk) 12:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. --McZusatz (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Broekn file. Yann (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_Purpur-Fruchtwanze,_Carpocoris_purpureipennis.test.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Purpur-Fruchtwanze,_Carpocoris_purpureipennis.test.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
_Purpur-Fruchtwanze,_Carpocoris_purpureipennis.test.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
_Purpur-Fruchtwanze,_Carpocoris_purpureipennis.test.jpg){kind=link}
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Australian Census 2011 demographic map - New South Wales by POA - BCP field 0147 Visitor from Different SA2 in Victoria Age 0 14 years.svg
[edit]
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 11:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for spotting it. A handful of them got corrupted on upload. Now that I know of this, I'll get it replaced, but can't attend to it in the next week. In the meantime it's ok to delete, I'll just replace it then. --99of9 (talk) 13:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Not own work (as claimed), also probably not simple enough to be PD Hoo man (talk) 11:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- You are right, off course. I must have forgotten to write a request for deletion myself. A sucessful uploading of the picture has been done, please see attached File: Olof Hellström Kluven 01.JPG. File:Olof Hellström Kluven 01.JPG. Boberger (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
404 error. Any reason to keep this? Yann (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Bad quality image. I will upload a new one in anothter format in 2014. Vysotsky (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality user image, not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Besseres Foto vorhanden: Wiesbaden Johann Wilhelm Lehr Haus Hoffmann Strassenseite.jpg Haffitt (talk) 13:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This work is subject of copyright. As you can see at http://tlt.pl/ all site content is "Copyright © 2013 Tyskie Linie Trolejbusowe Sp. z o.o." Wszelkie prawa zastrzeżone = all rights reserved. I can not find any mention of release this image via CC0. WTM2 (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The photographs used in the collage are not self-created by the flickr user. Martin H. (talk) 13:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Capture of copy-righted logo —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. It was my fault that i didn't properly or ignored the parameters in summary and licensing. After this DR only i happened to see the non-free media templates. I have one confusion and one query? Which template could be used so that this image may be used in multiple articles, since many having the ARTICLE parameter. Is it compulsory to fill? Hope this can be rectified. --Bala(blitz) 01:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikley to be the work of the uploader who has uploaded a number of random sized images of various quality probably copied from the internet - refer to user other uploads MilborneOne (talk) 14:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Martin H. Yann (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
File:Faruk Bang ist ein Muslime ein Türke und sein Richtiger Name Lautet ( Faruk Altuntas Samed ) 2013-12-27 14-21.jpg
[edit]_2013-12-27_14-21.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-12-27_14-21.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, pers. rights (13 years old) Nolispanmo 14:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by DaB. Yann (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content. Martin H. (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Highly doubtful the uploader is the creator or the book cover is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Highly doubtful this book cover is the uploader's own work or is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:47, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Highly doubtful this book cover is the uploader's own work or is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Highly doubtful this book cover is the uploader's 'own work' or is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Être et Temps.jpg.
Highly doubtful this book cover is the uploader's own work or is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Question Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This reasoning has been applied by an uploader here but has not been subjected to a conmmunity discussion. My take is the editor's logo is copyrighted and the files should be moved to the French WP, which has an exception for logos, and/or the English WP under fiar use. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The editor's logo is certainly {{PD-textlogo}}. There is no question about that. The only issue is "does the design of this cover have a copyright?" I don't think so, but... Yann (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The trademark "Nrf" in this aspect is registered by Editions Gallimard [3] [4] (marque figurative n° 1471529). I think we should follow the precautionary principle instead of
making a leap of faith andassuming it is {{PD-textlogo}}. And yes, many Gallimard cover layouts are also copyrighted. — Racconish Tk 21:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)- You need to learn the difference between a trademark and a copyright. We have thousands of logos and other images with PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo, under the same rationale: "too simple to get a copyright". We don't keep these because of faith, but because of the law. There is no need for excessive precautions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware of this difference. This is a protected graphic representation of a trademark. It is described in fr:Éditions Gallimard as a "monogram" and in en:Editions Gallimard as a "stylised logo". See also here for the history of this monogram. It was designed by Jean Schlumberger [5]. In my opinion, it is not up to us to decide if this stylisation is above the threshold of originality, hence my reference to the precautionary principle. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 09:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you bring the issue of tradmark which is irrelevant to the copyright status of this? And yes, we have to decide if it is above the threshold of originality, or not. That's a decision we do every day. Don't be afraid of life... Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is a marque semi-figurative, a trademark associated with a copyrighted graphic representation of the trademark, per article L. 711-1 (c) of Code de la propriété intellectuelle [6], the latter bearing the "imprint of the personality of the author". — Racconish Tk 09:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- We have many like this on Commons, and we have decided that trademark is a different issue. Please don't pursue this further, it's a waste a time. Yann (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yann, I apologize for the confusion created by my reference to the copyrighted figurative trademark. Let me rephrase : the issue here, in my opinion, is to appreciate if the 'nrf' logo is a mere non-copyrightable use of a font, in which case {{Trademarked}} would suffice, or an artistic design, a monogram specifically designed by Schlumberger as claimed by Gallimard. Thanks, — Racconish Tk 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- We have many like this on Commons, and we have decided that trademark is a different issue. Please don't pursue this further, it's a waste a time. Yann (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is a marque semi-figurative, a trademark associated with a copyrighted graphic representation of the trademark, per article L. 711-1 (c) of Code de la propriété intellectuelle [6], the latter bearing the "imprint of the personality of the author". — Racconish Tk 09:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you bring the issue of tradmark which is irrelevant to the copyright status of this? And yes, we have to decide if it is above the threshold of originality, or not. That's a decision we do every day. Don't be afraid of life... Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware of this difference. This is a protected graphic representation of a trademark. It is described in fr:Éditions Gallimard as a "monogram" and in en:Editions Gallimard as a "stylised logo". See also here for the history of this monogram. It was designed by Jean Schlumberger [5]. In my opinion, it is not up to us to decide if this stylisation is above the threshold of originality, hence my reference to the precautionary principle. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 09:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You need to learn the difference between a trademark and a copyright. We have thousands of logos and other images with PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo, under the same rationale: "too simple to get a copyright". We don't keep these because of faith, but because of the law. There is no need for excessive precautions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The trademark "Nrf" in this aspect is registered by Editions Gallimard [3] [4] (marque figurative n° 1471529). I think we should follow the precautionary principle instead of
- The editor's logo is certainly {{PD-textlogo}}. There is no question about that. The only issue is "does the design of this cover have a copyright?" I don't think so, but... Yann (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This reasoning has been applied by an uploader here but has not been subjected to a conmmunity discussion. My take is the editor's logo is copyrighted and the files should be moved to the French WP, which has an exception for logos, and/or the English WP under fiar use. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Publisher's logo cannot be considered as ineligible for copyright — Racconish Tk 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Publisher's logo cannot be considered as ineligible for copyright — Racconish Tk 15:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Publisher's logo cannot be considered as ineligible for copyright — Racconish Tk 16:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.176.82 16:35, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep The copyright has expired. --84.61.176.82 23:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
No evidence the author died early enough. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Text in image is probably copyrighted, as are the photographs on the information board. Nev1 (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The reconstruction drawing in this information sign is most likely copyrighted, which goes for the text as well. Nev1 (talk) 17:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:FOP#United Kingdom. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
no fop in italy FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
no fop in italy FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
no educational use imgaginalble - where we should use such an image? Clear to see, that here is in the center an exhebitional cause (or why would post someone an image with pants up, only with a penis out?). We habe enough better images. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Again, this image is no different from most of the other ones like it on the site. You ask "why would post someone (huh??) an image with pants up, only with a penis out?" You could also ask why would someone post an image with their genitals locked in a chastity cage or some other BDSM device. Or why one would show themselves emitting bodily fluids. Files D SCN0105 and D SCN0106 (file name changes have been requested) are just showing a natural penis. Pnnpotvrfs (talk) 16:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- We talking about this image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
no educational use imgaginalble - where we should use such an image? Clear to see, that here is in the center an exhebitional cause (or why would post someone an image with the half of the cloths on, but centered on the penis?). We habe enough better images. Marcus Cyron (talk) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
In case you haven't noticed there are hundreds of pics like this one on this site, all of which could be deemed "exhebitional" (it's spelled exhibitional, by the way) where people are masturbating, engaging in genital torture, having intercourse, and/or emitting bodily fluids. So if this has no educational use, one (you) could make the argument that those other images don't either. And maybe it's centered on the penis because it's supposed to be...a picture of the penis?? Pnnpotvrfs (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- We talking about this image. Marcus Cyron (talk) 17:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PORN..not again someone grabbing his camera to take a dick shot. Even the image name is useless. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Info Simple report in relation to image size: --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Target file File:D SCN0106.JPG
- Pixel resolution = 5152 x 3864
- Source category: Uncircumcised human penis
- Total number of unique images including in child and grandchild categories: 469 (using first 100)
- Number with pixel resolution >= target resolution: 1 (in top 2%)
- Number with file size >= target size: 3 (in top 4%)
- TARDIS report completed: Wed, 01 Jan 2014 15:12 (20.0s runtime)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal file. küñall (nütramyen) 18:39, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal file that is used for promotion on Wikipedia. küñall (nütramyen) 18:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal file. küñall (nütramyen) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal file. küñall (nütramyen) 18:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
No FoP for art in Japan JurgenNL (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Simple gun promotion without any educational possibility to use it Marcus Cyron (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Would and Edit to the caption stating that this is a portrait of the CarniKCon crew be more appropriate. This is not gun promotion but instead it is one of few available photos of the CarniK Con founding staff. -AlbinoBlackRhino
- please reupload te image without any captions. Captions the kind you used are strongly discouraged. We are no add plattform. Else delete pic.- Andy king50 (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The file lacks the author, source or the publication date. It may quite well still be copyright. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is in prior use at other places on the internet and may not be free to use. The description claims to be the work of the uploader, but the image appears on sites with earlier dates, see here for additional copies. Possible COM:COPYVIO, and out of scope, no educational purpose. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This image appears as subject's icon ('avatar') on several other webpages. Probably not the work of the uploader, whose other upload is a logo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an advertisement, not an image. This image is in use elsewhere on the web as a "station icon" for this radio station. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is promotion or self-promotion, out of COM:SCOPE. The image in this picture was also uploaded to Commons at about the same time. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image is found on many other websites examples. It is a screen shot from a computer game, and possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Grzegorznadolski as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: out of project scope, personal photo INeverCry 20:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Grzegorznadolski as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: out of project scope, personal photo INeverCry 20:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I support Grzegorz's nomination for speedy; does not look like a very valuable photo to me, including quality. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 21:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Worse than having this one irrelevant image among 20 million, is having two users who cannot tell apart the difference between a speedy deletion and a deletion request, and who yet think their input in DRs is relevant. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete poor quality photo without compensating importance or in scope usefulness. (I do NOT support tagging as "Speedy", IMO improper use of {{Speedy}}. Listing for deletion is appropriate.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 05:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This image is found on multiple websites besides the page shown as the source on the description lines. At least one, here have "copyright 2013" on them. Possible COM:COPYVIO. The page from which the description says it was taken is labeled "Copyright © 1999-2013 Kessler Associates. All rights reserved. " Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- And this also:
- File:Perdikkas II. 451-413 BC.jpg
- File:Coin of Alexander I King of Macedonia 498-454 BCE.jpg
- File:Archelaos I of Macedon. 413-399 BC.jpg
Possible Copyvio. --R ašo
12:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 21:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Erro ao enviar as informações da foto. Denis Morais (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Não peça para apagar a imagem: Edite a página e acrescente as informações em falta. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Please, closing admin, don’t assume the vk above is me ignoring an uploader’s DR. On the contrary, uploader mistakenly assumed a new upload is necessary to fill in the missing information about the photo’s licensing and permission. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. INeverCry 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Errei em não informar informações da figura. Denis Morais (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: Não peça para apagar a imagem: Edite a página e acrescente as informações em falta. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: Please, closing admin, don’t assume the vk above is me ignoring an uploader’s DR. On the contrary, uploader mistakenly assumed a new upload is necessary to fill in the missing information about the photo’s licensing and permission. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: On the other hand: What’s the FoP and ToO laws in Brazil? -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. INeverCry 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Author died in 1949, the image should be deleted until 2020. I do not understand why this image is not copyrighted. Gumruch (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
out of focus, vague, no possible use Pete Tillman (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Same http://populacaodistritodeaveiro.jimdo.com/ graphic style. Yanguas (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Caro Yanguas Não percebo a razão para ter deletado os 2 gráficos relativos à freguesia de Salreu. Todos os dados estão disponíveis no site do Instituto Nacional de Estatística. Apenas me limitei a reproduzir esses dados em gráficos que facilitem a leitura destes dados. A referência ao site www.populacaodistritodeaveiro.jimdo.com (que é minha criação) destina-se aqueles que queiram aumentar os seus conhecimentos sobre a evolução da população dos concelhos do distrito de Aveiro, desde 1864 até aos dias de hoje. Não há,assim, qualquer violação dos direitos de autor. Cumprimentos JFerreira
Deleted: INeverCry 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Same http://populacaodistritodeaveiro.jimdo.com/ graphic style. Yanguas (talk) 23:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Vlado Mileski lived until 1984, which was less than 70 years ago. Rybec (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
PD-textlogo does not apply. Krd 07:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Besides the text, there are just parallelograms, or if you see "cubes", they are still simple geometry shapes. --UAwiki (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Kept: pd simple apparently FASTILY 10:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
This is a lot more complex than the logo at the bottom of page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf where adding a simple border was enough to make a logo protected by copyright. The file is additionally an SVG file, so we need to identify where the source code comes from and obtain a licence from the coder. Stefan4 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright infringementYmblanter (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files of User:DGROMM80
[edit]
Probable copyright violation. These files were uploaded during 12-13 June 2013 and are the only uploads ever of User:DGROMM80 who immediately added them to w:Sommelier. The files are claimed to be "own work". The images can be found using Google's "search by image" in the exact same resolution on the web pages of two French companies, the first image at [7] and the second one at [8]. The first image may have been in circulation since 2008. Olli Niemitalo (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope, Wikimedia Commons is not to use for private albums PierreSelim (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dimasmotta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely cropped: All files previously published via https://www.facebook.com/dimas.alvesdamota/photos:
- File:Caico sunset.jpg (uploaded 08.2013, cropped: watermark removed) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=625222767503038&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388173620.&type=1&theater (07.2013)
- File:Caico centro.jpg (uploaded 08.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=619019251456723&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388173740.&type=1&theater (07.2013).
- File:Serra de São Bernardo.jpg + File:Serra de São Bernardo s.jpg (uploaded 10.05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=588636181161697&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388173889.&type=1&theater (04.05.2013).
- File:Catedral de Sant'ana de Caicó.jpg (uploaded 05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=539824849376164&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388174100.&type=1&theater (01.2013).
- File:Centro de Caicó.jpg (uploaded 05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=501172929908023&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388174485.&type=1&theater (2012)
- File:Caicopanoramica.jpg (uploaded 05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=496276073731042&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388174492.&type=1&theater (2012)
- File:Serra de São Bernardo Caico RN.jpg (uploaded 05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=495837437108239&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388174492.&type=1&theater (2012)
- File:Cachoeira Caico RN.jpg (uploaded 10.05.2013, cropped) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=590103007681681&set=pb.100000459601829.-2207520000.1388173889.&type=3&src=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-frc1%2F920069_590103007681681_328486107_o.jpg&smallsrc=https%3A%2F%2Ffbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net%2Fhphotos-ak-frc3%2F397866_590103007681681_328486107_n.jpg&size=1360%2C2048 (08.05.2013)
Note also user name Dimasmotta versus real name Dimas Mota. Permission from the real Dimas Mota needed. Most likely a impersonator and per behaviour most likely a sock of Category:Sockpuppets of Rubenbreezy, per [9] and (e.g.) per File:Caicomosaicos.png by Rubenbreezy, partially mounted with some of above photos.
- File:Caico sunset.jpg
- File:Caico centro.jpg
- File:Caicopanoramica.jpg
- File:Centro de Caicó.jpg
- File:Serra de São Bernardo Caico RN.jpg
- File:Cachoeira Caico RN.jpg
- File:Catedral de Sant'ana de Caicó.jpg
- File:Serra de São Bernardo s.jpg
- File:Serra de São Bernardo.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Edito45678 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution image without EXIF, unlikely to be own work
- File:T 72.jpg
- File:1vlcsnap-50283.jpg
- File:Mbt2000.jpg
- File:Tanguska.jpg
- File:Mtlb.jpg
- File:Btr3.jpg
- File:628x471-1.jpeg
- File:1vlcsnap-45995.jpg
- File:1vlcsnap-44112.jpg
- File:Tangusnka.jpg
−ebraminiotalk 11:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Mass deleted. New upload created account and immidiatly started mass uploading stolen content. Martin H. (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably COM:COPYVIO. The two concert photos are from multiple websites as shown here and the logo is from here clearly labeled "Logopond™ Copyright © 2006 - 2013 "
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Text contributions, out of Commons:Project scope.
- File:Fragmenta Dipterologica, nr. 41, 2013.pdf
- File:LEJRER & OPRISAN, 2013 - Dobrogiella n.g.- Mulhouse.pdf
- File:Fragmenta Dipterologica, 2013, nr. 40.pdf
- File:Fragm. dipt., 2013, nr. 39.pdf
- File:FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA, 2013, nr. 38.pdf
- File:FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA, 2013, Nr. 37.pdf
- File:FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA, 2012, Nr. 35.pdf
- File:FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA, 2012, nr. 34.pdf
- File:Fragmenta dipterologica nr. 33.pdf
- File:Nr.1 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA.pdf
- File:14 Nr.14 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 14.pdf
- File:13 Nr.13 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 13.pdf
- File:12 Nr.12 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 12.pdf
- File:1 Nr.11 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 11.pdf
- File:1 Nr.10 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 10.pdf
- File:1 Nr.9 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGI CA 9.pdf
- File:1 Nr.6 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 6.pdf
- File:1 Nr.5 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 5.pdf
- File:1 Nr.4 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA 4.pdf
- File:Nr.3 FRAGMENTA DIPTEROLOGICA.pdf
- File:Fragmenta dipterologica, nr-1-. 32.pdf
Martin H. (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope: Wikimedia Commons is a media repository. PierreSelim (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Krestos-Crestos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Apellidos Judios en la Diaspora.pdf
- File:Conversion-Guiur.pdf
- File:La Halaja.pdf
- File:Conversion al Judaismo.pdf
- File:Lista de Apellidos Sefardies-Sefarditas.pdf
- File:Sephardic surnames.pdf
Series of documents/pdfs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 05:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lichtblick Münnerstadt (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images of text are out of COM:SCOPE because the same information can be added to articles using only text. These pages are not in use on the project.
- File:Prävalenz der Demenzerkrankungen und deren Prognosen für die fokussierten Landkreise.png
- File:Pflegebedürftige nach Versorgungsarten in den Landkreisen.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Advertising pdf files out of COM:SCOPE, watermarked and possible COM:COPYVIO.
- File:Colectores de polvos 03.jpg
- File:Colectores de polvos 01.jpg
- File:Colectores de polvos 02.jpg
- File:Polvo Industrial 02.pdf
- File:Polvo Industrial 01.pdf
- File:Ventilacion Industrial.pdf
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohiemen Tanim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
- File:চাঁদপুর পলিটেকনিক ইন্সটিটিউট.jpg
- File:Bholapolytechnicinstitute.jpg
- File:একাডেমিক ভবন - কুমিল্লা শিক্ষাবোর্ড মডেল কলেজ.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohitkumargoel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability.
- File:Outsource SEO brainshakers.png
- File:SEO REseller Company brainshakers interactive.png
- File:Goel mohit deoband.jpg
- File:Mohit Goel SEO.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohitkumargoel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company with questionable notability.
- File:ThanksGiving Day - BrainShakers SEO.jpg
- File:Blog-post link guidelines - brainshakers interactive.png
- File:Link Building Guidelines 2014 brainshakers interactive.jpg
- File:Brainshakers Interactive.png
- File:REPUTATION MANAGEMENT.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Text contribution, out of project scope. Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content.
Martin H. (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Mercedesfunes2605.jpg
- File:Aliados logo.jpg
- File:Julian ezequiel serrano.jpg
- File:Oriana gabriela sabatini.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ritu tewary (talk · contribs)
[edit]The model is unlikely to be the photographer, creating a possible COM:COPYVIO. One image is merely a crop of the other and the description indicates an attempt at self-promotion. Commons is not social media.
- File:Model and actress 2013-12-21 11-10.jpg
- File:Its my own image --- M a model n want be recognised by my image 2013-12-21 10-33.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep File:Model and actress 2013-12-21 11-10.jpg as it in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Question, if she says it's her own image, and she's the model, how can she be the photographer as well? We can see both her hands in this image, it's not a selfie, but a pro shot. One image is a crop of the other, hence both were taken by one photographer. My concern - whether the image in use or not - is that itis not likely hers to freely license. I don't see any indication on the image or its description that gives me confidence to assume she has the license rights. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Delete The image obviously comes from here. We do not have a valid permission that this image was published under a free license. COM:OTRS can be consulted by the uploader in order to bring some valid evidence for this free CC license. --High Contrast (talk) 22:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Yann (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Robertouporras (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Unclear images origins.
- File:Semblanza2.pdf
- File:Semblanza de un Tableño.pdf
- File:In Memoria Raquel Franco.pdf
- File:Libertad Absoluta o el Lobo del Hombre.pdf
- File:Fundacion Givre.pdf
- File:En memoria en el seol fresco de Conte Porras.pdf
- File:Palabras en la tumba del Tigre Victorio Vergara Batista.pdf
- File:Curriculum Vitae.pdf
- File:Certificacion.pdf
- File:Bálsamo Compensador de los Sufridos.pdf
- File:Datos Personales Roberto Urriola Porras.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sean Shnehil (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files are in use elsewhere on the internet, including on here. Possible COM:COPYVIO and self-promotion.
- File:It is the Album Art of Sean Shnehil's new single, released in 2013 November "MEMOIR"- 2013-12-21 09-00.jpg
- File:Sean Shnehil is the stage name of NEW DELHI (INDIA) based Rapper-Song writer-Singer "Shnehil Shandilya"- 2013-12-21 08-57.jpg
_based_Rapper-Song_writer-Singer_%22Shnehil_Shandilya%22-_2013-12-21_08-57.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ShangMakati (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are found on multiple websites as follows:
- Circles Event Cafe.jpg =these
- Makati Shangri-La Executive Suite.jpg = these
- Makati Shangri-La Hotel Facade.jpg= these
- Makati Shangri-La Main Lobby.jpg=these
- Shang Palace's Private Dining Area.jpg=these
and
- Red's Private Dining Room.jpg = this with watermark
Additionally, uploader's user name is very similar if not same as the hotel name being advertised in these possible COM:COPYVIO photos. The only upload from this user I did not flag was the logo of the hotel itself.
- File:Red's Private Dining Room.jpg
- File:Shang Palace's Private Dining Area.jpg
- File:Makati Shangri-La Main Lobby.jpg
- File:Makati Shangri-La Hotel Facade.jpg
- File:Makati Shangri-La Executive Suite.jpg
- File:Circles Event Cafe.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SmartViTech (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sunnytomar2050 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WandaWonders (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots outside COM:SCOPE, appear to be illustrating how to turn on and off a particular program.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Possible non-free content, no original date of the image given, the person died in 1988 (25 years ago). Kmzayeem (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete He doesn't possibly also look younger to fall in the PD-India range of pre-1954. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:48, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:52, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Possible non-free content, no date of original photo given, the person died in 1971 (42 years ago) Kmzayeem (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete He doesn't possibly also look younger to fall in the PD-India range of pre-1954. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replicated file of file:The_Ou_ma_too_five_horse_heads.jpg. 維基小霸王 (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, this file has a lot bigger resolution than the other file. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
a better version File:FJU HE04.jpg had existed PK1913 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, they are not so similar photos, but considering uploader's request for unused file and low educational value, I agree to delete. I looked about possible violation of freedom of panorama, but there is freedom of panorama for architecture in Taiwan. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
involve some trendmark icons PK1913 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, I am not sure in trademarks, but considering uploader's request for unused file and low encyclopedical value, I agree to delete. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
involve some body's face but they were not allow it NSYSU (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree PK1913 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the request is incorrect, because no face is seen, but considering, that the file is unused and has low encyclopedical value and the uploader agrees with deletion, I agree to delete. Taivo (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
involve some body's face but they were not allow it NSYSU (talk) 06:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree PK1913 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the request is incorrect, because no face is well seen. The file is used and has encyclopedical value. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
involve some body's face but they were not allow it NSYSU (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Public place. Yann (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
involve some body's face but they were not allow it NSYSU (talk) 06:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree PK1913 (talk) 06:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, the request is incorrect, because no face is well seen, but considering, that the uploader agrees with deletion and there is enough replacement files in Category:Sizihwan Station, I agree to delete. Taivo (talk) 12:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martin Heiddeger, L'etre et le temps maitrier.jpg.
Highly doubtful this book cover is the uploader's own work or is copyright free — Racconish Tk 15:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Question Could it be {{PD-ineligible}}? Yann (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This reasoning has been applied by an uploader here but has not been subjected to a conmmunity discussion. My take is the editor's logo is copyrighted and the files should be moved to the French WP, which has an exception for logos, and/or the English WP under fiar use. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The editor's logo is certainly {{PD-textlogo}}. There is no question about that. The only issue is "does the design of this cover have a copyright?" I don't think so, but... Yann (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- The trademark "Nrf" in this aspect is registered by Editions Gallimard [10] [11] (marque figurative n° 1471529). I think we should follow the precautionary principle instead of
making a leap of faith andassuming it is {{PD-textlogo}}. And yes, many Gallimard cover layouts are also copyrighted. — Racconish Tk 21:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)- You need to learn the difference between a trademark and a copyright. We have thousands of logos and other images with PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo, under the same rationale: "too simple to get a copyright". We don't keep these because of faith, but because of the law. There is no need for excessive precautions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware of this difference. This is a protected graphic representation of a trademark. It is described in fr:Éditions Gallimard as a "monogram" and in en:Editions Gallimard as a "stylised logo". See also here for the history of this monogram. It was designed by Jean Schlumberger [12]. In my opinion, it is not up to us to decide if this stylisation is above the threshold of originality, hence my reference to the precautionary principle. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 09:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you bring the issue of tradmark which is irrelevant to the copyright status of this? And yes, we have to decide if it is above the threshold of originality, or not. That's a decision we do every day. Don't be afraid of life... Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is a marque semi-figurative, a trademark associated with a copyrighted graphic representation of the trademark, per article L. 711-1 (c) of Code de la propriété intellectuelle [13], the latter bearing the "imprint of the personality of the author".— Racconish Tk 09:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- We have many like this on Commons, and we have decided that trademark is a different issue. Please don't pursue this further, it's a waste a time. Yann (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Yann, I apologize for the confusion created by my reference to the copyrighted figurative trademark. Let me rephrase : the issue here, in my opinion, is to appreciate if the 'nrf' logo is a mere non-copyrightable use of a font, in which case {{Trademarked}} would suffice, or an artistic design, a monogram specifically designed by Schlumberger as claimed by Gallimard. Thanks, — Racconish Tk 12:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- We have many like this on Commons, and we have decided that trademark is a different issue. Please don't pursue this further, it's a waste a time. Yann (talk) 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Because it is a marque semi-figurative, a trademark associated with a copyrighted graphic representation of the trademark, per article L. 711-1 (c) of Code de la propriété intellectuelle [13], the latter bearing the "imprint of the personality of the author".— Racconish Tk 09:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Then why do you bring the issue of tradmark which is irrelevant to the copyright status of this? And yes, we have to decide if it is above the threshold of originality, or not. That's a decision we do every day. Don't be afraid of life... Yann (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- I am aware of this difference. This is a protected graphic representation of a trademark. It is described in fr:Éditions Gallimard as a "monogram" and in en:Editions Gallimard as a "stylised logo". See also here for the history of this monogram. It was designed by Jean Schlumberger [12]. In my opinion, it is not up to us to decide if this stylisation is above the threshold of originality, hence my reference to the precautionary principle. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 09:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You need to learn the difference between a trademark and a copyright. We have thousands of logos and other images with PD-ineligible or PD-textlogo, under the same rationale: "too simple to get a copyright". We don't keep these because of faith, but because of the law. There is no need for excessive precautions. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The trademark "Nrf" in this aspect is registered by Editions Gallimard [10] [11] (marque figurative n° 1471529). I think we should follow the precautionary principle instead of
- The editor's logo is certainly {{PD-textlogo}}. There is no question about that. The only issue is "does the design of this cover have a copyright?" I don't think so, but... Yann (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- This reasoning has been applied by an uploader here but has not been subjected to a conmmunity discussion. My take is the editor's logo is copyrighted and the files should be moved to the French WP, which has an exception for logos, and/or the English WP under fiar use. Cheers, — Racconish Tk 20:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The source for this image is stated to be "Archivo de Imágenes del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia - España." Is that a free web source? Leoboudv (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The archived version of the linked site says nothing about a free license. I would say delete. Jcb (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Though the depicted died in 1909, the bust itself might still be copyrighted. So, we have 2 unclear copyrights here, one of the sculptor and one of the photographer. Without further evidence of a free license, Delete. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Indeed, two unknow copyrights: First of all it is not clear that this file was in the public domaine in the first place. No evidence has been brought up and like túrelio says, the sculpture might still be copyrighted. Natuur12 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
cancelation 189.163.15.245 17:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything, because free licenses are irrevocable. But the uploader's (user Garcia Martinez Jesus) only contributions in Wikipedia are creating a self-promotional userpage in en.wiki and uploading 3 selfies. One of them is used on his userpage and the others nowhere. All the user's activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope, therefore I will delete all his uploads. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Not more than gun promotion - I can't imagine a educational use. Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
This is a picture displaying a member from a YouTube Show. This picture seeks to identify the individual for the users who visit the page and watch the videos.
- it is absolutely open, if this youtube chanel is of any importance for a wikimedia project at all. Very uneasy with this US/weapons stuff. delete Andy king50 (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: in use. -- Tuválkin ✉ 09:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. It's a still (I think) from a YouTube channel about the use of guns. Agree with the fact that it's idiotic, but Wikipedia is neutral on these matters. --Gilgongo (talk) 21:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the photo's value is proved: it is in use. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This appears to be a 2013 photo of a 1990 photo. Subject died in 2007; uploader identified 2013 as the date of the photo. Likely copyright violation. Pete F (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- This photo was done during a pubblic event, the inhauguration of the pubblic library of Bagno a Ripoli (FI) Italy, and Luigi Crocetti was the representing ufficially Regione Toscana. --Giaccai (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, did you take both the 1990 photo and the 2013 reproduction of it? -Pete F (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I'll ask the autor to give the autorization and I'll sent to permissions-it@wikimedia.org. Thank Susanna --Giaccai (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Ah, did you take both the 1990 photo and the 2013 reproduction of it? -Pete F (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted, if OTRS-permission arrives, then the photo will be restored. Taivo (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
- Restored per ticket:2014012510001781 Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Invalid {{PD-textlogo}} claim. Lots of things in the background make this unfree. Stefan4 (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep, it's hard to see that the background is not completely smooth. If somebody would make it smooth, it would not even affect the logo itself. Jcb (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The background is a lot more complex than the logo at the bottom of page 1 of http://www.ipmall.info/hosted_resources/CopyrightAppeals/2006/CCC%20Logo.pdf for which the United States Copyright Office granted copyright protection. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:BF-Schriftzug.png. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, does not surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I disagree with speedy deletion, please discuss. Nicoli Maege (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Note Original speedy delete rational was: "Miles out of every project scope - no educational use possible. Exhebitionists spam." -Marcus Cyron
- Keep Image is high quality, and is of a unique hybrid i.e. urination while penis is erect. This is why I added it, no such image exists on commons that I could locate. In my opinion it falls within the project scope.Nicoli Maege (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - again - so much out of every project scope. We collect images with educational usability. This image is not usable in such way. Simply one more of the daily exhebitionist spam, even this time not the guy from the image uploaded it. Commons is not the Book of Sex world records. Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:24, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment I feel we may have a fundamental disagreement then, because I think that sex is a part of life, and should be an integral part of education. Therefore, from my perspective this image is usable (for the reasons previously stated). Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting every wikipedian take a photo of their privates and upload them just because. Just as you shouldn't overgeneralize in one direction though, you shouldn't in the other either. Just because it is an image of a penis doesn't make it automatically spam, nor out of the project scope. Nicoli Maege (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- To pee with a half errect penis is for you education? And don't try to put me in a corner were I'm the bad guy who is against sexuality or nudity, I've uploaded more images in this area then you. I wrote a lot articles about it. But this image is for me out of the Commons project scope. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, you said it four times now. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- To pee with a half errect penis is for you education? And don't try to put me in a corner were I'm the bad guy who is against sexuality or nudity, I've uploaded more images in this area then you. I wrote a lot articles about it. But this image is for me out of the Commons project scope. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- comment I feel we may have a fundamental disagreement then, because I think that sex is a part of life, and should be an integral part of education. Therefore, from my perspective this image is usable (for the reasons previously stated). Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting every wikipedian take a photo of their privates and upload them just because. Just as you shouldn't overgeneralize in one direction though, you shouldn't in the other either. Just because it is an image of a penis doesn't make it automatically spam, nor out of the project scope. Nicoli Maege (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Obviously. This is a high quality image, worth keeping on its value, both esthetic and documental. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep - good quality image, urination is within scope. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- High resolution and good quality are not the same. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- An important difference I’m sure Mattbuck is aware of. Not less important, and more so to a Commons admin, is the difference between a speedy deletion and a deletion request — there are policies in place for either, and they say that the former applies to specific situations, such as identical duplicates, unused/unusable redirects, copyright violations, and a few others — none of those few is «Eek, a penis!». Why would an admin misuse the figure of speedy deletion and again reuse the mislading wording once it was apty converted to a regular DR (see above @2013.12.27+23:24) is something I cannot fathom. -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:47, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- High resolution and good quality are not the same. Marcus Cyron (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Not trustworthy FlickR source (again no EXIF data), and sole COM:PORN. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Good try, but neither "Tommy Jones" nor "97748365@N02" are listed at COM:QFI, as it would be expected to be if this weren’t just one more anti-porn crusade: Because all you have to do to have this one and any other “impure, sinful” image erased from Commons is to file a DR and wait for one of those admins who delete everything regardless of reason (because they have their own little agenda) to find it, while COM:QFI is kept as a visible central resource and it would be hard to have it mantained as anything else than it is. Any accusation of possible copyvio here, should Mr. Dick be scratching his thumb while penning a letter instead of being taking a leak while beating off would have been disregarded under COM:AGF. Or, if the case is serious against Tommy Jones = 97748365@N02, lets have it at COM:QFI first. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
- Info Quick quality benchmark, make of it what you will: --Fæ (talk) 23:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
- Target file File:Mid-masturbation_urination.jpg
- Pixel resolution = 4000 x 2672
- Source category: Erect human penis
- Total number of unique images including in child and grandchild categories: 918 (truncated to first 100)
- Number with pixel resolution >= target resolution: 10 (in top 11%)
- Number with file size >= target size: 7 (in top 8%)
- TARDIS report completed: Sat, 04 Jan 2014 23:28 (33.7s runtime)
Kept, there is no other such photo in Category:Human male urination. Big photo, good quality. Taivo (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fastily as no source (no source since) Stefan4 (talk) 23:26, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The source is clearly indicated on the file itself: "Office of the sheriff-coroner". --Stefan4 (talk) 23:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hubbard Religious Instructions post moretm.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SAN LUIS OBISPO SHER SUP REPT HUB.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toxicology Report Hubbard.gif
- Keep: This is a work for which the direct Commons source makes no difference, as its authorship, date, and U.S. original source is self-evident from the document, making it clearly a California public record covered by {{PD-CAGov}}: see, for example, County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition for the wide scope of copyright being proscribed for public work in California. Furthermore, it's pre-1989 without a copyright notice or registration, so {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Unless there is some reason to believe the document is a non-California-government work (which would basically be saying that it's a forgery or substantially altered) and published either outside the U.S. or after February 1989, it is public domain one way or another and any intervening source would not affect whether this file is eligible for Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the file is properly licensed and in public domain. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fastily as no source (no source since) Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The source is clearly indicated on the file itself: Sierra Vista Hospital. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coroner Post MortemHubbard.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hubbard Religious Instructions post moretm.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SAN LUIS OBISPO SHER SUP REPT HUB.gif
- Keep: This is a work which contains almost nothing that could be construed as meeting the threshold of originality for the U.S., and asserts itself to be a pre-1989 U.S. work, and is without copyright notice and almost certainly unregistered. This makes its licening status {{PD-US-1978-89}} even if it wasn't {{PD-ineligible}}. The U.S. does not recognize a new copyright on unoriginal duplications of existing works: therefore, the copy is therefore public domain and eligible for Commons regardless of any nominal source that could be applied. The only way this public domain status could be in the question is if someone reasonably asserts that the document is a substantially faked text first published post-1988 or outside the U.S., or that public records in California (for which this report was created) weren't in a state of being offered to the public for reproduction (a rough definition of post-1977 "publication" in the U.S.) until after February 1989; otherwise, there is no source that is likely to have any effect on whether this file is eligible for Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the file is properly licensed and in public domain. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fastily as no source (no source since) Stefan4 (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The source is clearly indicated on the file itself: San Luis Obispo Sheriff's Department. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coroner Post MortemHubbard.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hubbard Religious Instructions post moretm.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toxicology Report Hubbard.gif
- Keep: This is a work for which the direct Commons source makes no difference, as its authorship, date, and U.S. original source is self-evident from the document, making it clearly a California public record covered by {{PD-CAGov}}: see, for example, County of Santa Clara v. California First Amendment Coalition for the wide scope of copyright being proscribed for public work in California. Furthermore, it's pre-1989 without a copyright notice or registration, so {{PD-US-1978-89}}. Unless there is some reason to believe the document is a non-California-government work (which would basically be saying that it's a forgery or substantially altered) and published either outside the U.S. or after February 1989, it is public domain one way or another and any intervening source would not affect whether this file is eligible for Commons. --Closeapple (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the file is properly licensed and in public domain. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fastily as no source (no source since) Stefan4 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- The nominator forgot to notify the uploader. One could argue that the source is inscribed on the file itself. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Coroner Post MortemHubbard.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:SAN LUIS OBISPO SHER SUP REPT HUB.gif, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Toxicology Report Hubbard.gif
- Keep: A work for which the source makes no difference, as its authorship, date, and U.S. origin is self-evident from the document, making it very likely that its licensing status is {{PD-US-1978-89}} even if it wasn't {{PD-ineligible}} boilerplace text in the first place; and the U.S. does not recognize a new copyright on unoriginal duplications of existing works: therefore, the copy is therefore public domain and eligible for Commons regardless of any nominal source that could be applied. The only way this public domain status could be in the question is if someone reasonably asserts that the document is a substantially faked text first published post-1988 or outside the U.S., or that public records in California weren't in a state of being offered to the public for reproduction (a rough definition of post-1977 "publication" in the U.S.) until after February 1989. --Closeapple (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept, the file is properly licensed and in public domain. Taivo (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No permission from the painter. Yann (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you could read from the article of Sarojini Naidu, her photographs, house and other properties are declared Public, and the image I have put up is a collage of various ictures of her times, which, even according to Indian copyright law, are out of copyright and into Public domain. If you still have objection, plese remove it. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @రహ్మానుద్దీన్: Sorry, I can't understand Telugu (yet ;o) ), so I can't read the article in Telugu WP. But there is nothing about this on the English WP. More importantly, property and copyright are two different things: you could own a painting, yet you wouldn't own the copyright of the painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats not a painting, its a collage of three different images, and was colored. The English article says, she died in 1949, and if at all this painting was published in the year she died, it is still out of copyright according to Indian copyright law, I believe. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @రహ్మానుద్దీన్: Hmm. Ok, the pictures are probably in the public domain in India. I am not sure about the coloring. But to be in the public domain in USA, they need to be published before 1st January 1946. If you could find the original pictures, it could help. Anyway, the information you provided is wrong: the work is not your own, and you can't give a license yourself. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thats not a painting, its a collage of three different images, and was colored. The English article says, she died in 1949, and if at all this painting was published in the year she died, it is still out of copyright according to Indian copyright law, I believe. --రహ్మానుద్దీన్ (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
- @రహ్మానుద్దీన్: Sorry, I can't understand Telugu (yet ;o) ), so I can't read the article in Telugu WP. But there is nothing about this on the English WP. More importantly, property and copyright are two different things: you could own a painting, yet you wouldn't own the copyright of the painting. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Not PD on URAA date, see COM:URAA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
User:The Photographer/Selfish information The Photographer (talk) 20:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
- Keep: The subject is notable. Seems to be well known in Spain for showing up on TV behind all kinds of celebrities — a kind of troll iRL, so it is adequate that The Photographer branded this photo to his obnoxious, smarmy DR boilerplate. -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Low quality, motion blur. Unrecognizable main subject. without permission The Photographer (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- What, no cats? No smarmy lines? No passive agressive intimidation of occasional contributers? All dried up, your creamy center, is it? But still making pointy DRs, though, I see. -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep:
- «Low quality, motion blur.» Yes, but we don’t have a better pic of this notable person.
- «Unrecognizable main subject.» Oh, it’s all there, don’t worry. (We rely on metadata to enhance images’ identification all the time.)
- «without permission». Not needed, this is a public event. (All this guys does, shows up in public events and waves to cameras behind celebs.)
- -- Tuválkin ✉ 07:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Renominated with the same reasoning after being closed as keep. Tuvalkin has a point, regarding the low quality. Bidgee (talk) 07:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by HHubi as Speedy (sla) and the most recent rationale was: This picture is an artificially invention that never existed and should be deleted. See 
--HHubi (talk) 13:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC) INeverCry 21:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Kept: It is in use in several places and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyvio. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
