Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/01/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive January 3rd, 2014
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Golden Mosque interior Delhi 1843.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Gryffindor as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|File:Reminiscences of Imperial Delhi Moti Masjid within the Palace.png I wonder the frame and the signature (or title) make a difference. whym (talk) 01:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A bit more context: This was originally nominated for speedy deletion as a duplicate of File:Reminiscences of Imperial Delhi Moti Masjid within the Palace.png, which is a higher-resolution copy but lacks the frame and the plate below the drawing. whym (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete The image was uploaded erroneously by me, therefore I uploaded the higher resolution image. I am the original uploader, I do not need this version for anything, so please just speedily delete it instead of making things unnecessarily complicated. Thank you. Gryffindor (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: speedy deleted and redirected, as uploader's request of a file recently uploaded. I didn't notice the first upload was so recent, sorry. whym (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Malabo Oct 2001.jpg

[edit]

Smallsize copy of File:Malabo a 13-oct-01.jpg Denis Barthel (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: speedy deleted via other process  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Eileen Collins photographed by Annie Leibovitz as part of the NASA Art Program.jpg

[edit]

en:Annie Leibovitz is not a NASA employee and therefore the NASA PD claim is not verified. Note that other images from this Flickr stream include works from Andy Warhol, and other such notable artists. This work even states "All Rights Reserved". A release from Leibovitz may be required here. russavia (talk) 14:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Delete As mentioned on the Village pump, any image on the NASA Flickrstream with "All Rights Reserved" should be skipped in any upload as having significant doubt (and in cases like the Andy Warhol painting, no doubt whatsoever). From what I have seen so far, other content seems validly PD. It is a shame that NASA's gallery has muddied the waters this way, certainly worth someone taking on responsibilty for starting a correspondence with their web manager to see if the licensing can be corrected on their site. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Add this edit too. Jee 14:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I have sent "NASA on The Commons" a Flickr Mail and also sent an email to Leibovitz' agent "Contact Press Images". -- Colin (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just got a response from Contact Press Images about whether the image is public domain per "NASA on The Commons" declaration and its listing at Flickr Commons. "Absolutely is not! Thank you!" was their reply. -- Colin (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete <yanking hair, gnashing teeth> It's a shame. but I can't say I don't understand their position. Brilliant portrait. Kleuske (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I am quite confused by this, if she was employed by NASA to create this photo, doesn't that make her a federal employee? (and so make her image in the public domain). An example of this would be the war art from the UK National Archives by famous artists that was created under a crown copyright license. Taken from NASA's page on the NASA Art Project "A NASA art commission was modest, a mere $800, but artists were not motivated by the financial gains but rather at the prospect of witnessing American history and documenting it."
    Mrjohncummings (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a few issues here.
      1. Though the gallery describes the artworks as "NASA-commissioned artwork", this does not necessarily mean that a contract was in place that transferred copyright ownership of the resulting works.
      2. There is a range of 50 years in the dates of the artworks, any agreements, contracts, invitations to create artworks and other circumstances are highly likely to vary in that period.
      3. The website contact has already confirmed these are not all public domain.
    So, I'm afraid that where the images are on Flickr as All Rights Reserved, or where there might be other reasonable doubts, Commons would need additional confirmation. Where the artwork is by someone that was an employee of NASA at the time (such as a known astronaut) then there would be no doubt, but in the case of independent artists and photographers these fall under our Precautionary Principle. I would like to thank anyone uploading these in good faith, as these are definitely great works and of high educational benefit to the project, but I'm afraid that NASA's website is confusing and misleading as to what the underpinning copyright of the works are supposed to be.
    Oh, with regard to the UK Crown Copyright war art, that's a different kettle of fish, as the copyright has expired having exceeded the Crown's 50 year limit, plus some of these works were created by artists who were in national service at the time and their works automatically were property of the UK Ministry of Information or specific forces. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 17:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete it's a pity ... --P e z i (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete - It's a pity, but unless this can be shown to be PD (without a doubt) then it must go. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: And bam! So it goes. odder (talk) 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vera Brezhneva.png

[edit]

There is no evidence on the source page for a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license High Contrast (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't copy-paste my explanation. Please read my words on this page.
Thanks. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 16:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Obvious copyright violation. Martin H. (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Template:JG Aksara Jawa

[edit]

I've raised this template at the VP, with very little ensueing discussion, so am now nominating it for deletion, and redirection to {{No license since}}. The website just doesn't clearly show a free license and therefor the template, and all images licensed with it should be reviewed, and possibly deleted. Liamdavies (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's just a typeface, wouldn't {{PD-font}} apply? -- Liliana-60 (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's PD as a typeface then the template should still be deleted and all files marked with PD. Many of the files affected look slightly more stylised than a basic typeface, and many have watermarking. Liamdavies (talk) 12:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, nobody still does not want to discuss it, probably just nobody cares. Taivo (talk) 11:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


OK so we deleted the template however couple hundred files that use it are still around, but now without license:

Most of the other letter samples use {{PD-font}}. Does anybody know if we can use it, or do we have to loose those files? --Jarekt (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bejinhan.JPG

[edit]

Author = depicted person? Jcb (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author and I took it myself. Bejinhan talks 17:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain? (If you don't like to explain on-wiki, you may also use OTRS.) - Jcb (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - I see no reason for deletion, person can have used a camera to make a picture after some seconds or asked a random person sitting nearby to make a picture of her with her camera. There is no need at all to be puritan in such matter. Romaine (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay Pride London 1991.jpg shows that we do not lessen our requirements for editors. russavia (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - she took it herself. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment How mattbuck? You can see her arms clearly sitting on the table. Does the DSC-WX1 have an auto-timer on it allowing for her to have taken the photo? russavia (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Sorry to be nitpicky, but the subjects arms are visible on the table, so taking the photo themself is entirely unlikely. If the photo was taken by another individual, then we need permission from that individual, or some type of tangible statement that copyright was transferred. When all evidence of media not being taken by the person is present, we shouldn't make our requirements any more lax for editors on our projects, because we certainly don't give others this consideration, and nor should we. russavia (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that is totally unrealistic. Many many people ask other people to take a picture of them with their camera, and I have never seen any case or whatsoever that such gave problems as the person who was asked to take acted as meatpuppet in question of the subject. This has nothing to do with realistic copyright, this is only being horrible to users who have an oral agreement to use the picture. And no, for many many years we do not ask for such permission in cases like these for with OTRS. We have thousands of images like these on Commons and are no problem at all. Romaine (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not true, if people send a permission to OTRS stating that they are the copyright holder of a picture depicting them, we do ask for permission by the photographer. We have a standard answer for that: "This permission seems to be from a person depicted in the photograph, but the copyright holder of a photograph is the person who took the photograph, rather than a person who appears in it, unless the copyright is transferred by operation of law or contract. Can you please have the photographer send in a free license release for this image, or clarify how the copyright was transferred?" - WMF posted this picture on there blog, which they also shared on Facebook. It's a very bad idea if WMF has publicly lower standard for their elite, than we have for normal users. Subject will need to explain how she is the photographer or the picture will need to be deleted. Everything beyond this will create a very dangerous precedent. Jcb (talk) 22:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "It's a very bad idea if WMF has publicly lower standard for their elite, than we have for normal users." - Huh? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If this was anyone but a Wikipedia editor, we would be raising the same questions, and rightly so. russavia (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Original upload log: "created this work entirely by myself." No COM:AGF? Jee 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • We can COM:AGF, but at the same time there is significant doubt about the provenance of the photo. Firstly, the subjects hands are on the table, meaning that physically taking the photo is not possible. The camera angle is such that the camera is elevated off the table; either someone is sitting across from the subject and is holding the camera at an elevation required to get this angle, or the subject has placed the camera on top of boxes (or something similar) to take the photo. The first option is the most likely. As we can see from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay Pride London 1991.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ата і Perohanychi.JPG, we don't even allow long time Commons editors to avoid issues such as these when they arise, and there is no reason we shouldn't require it of this editor. I would suggest that User:Bejinhan come back here and explain how this photo was taken, and whether there was a transfer of copyright in the instance of it being taken by someone else. russavia (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • If User:Bejinhan will come back and explain, that is nice. But if I were the nominator, I would have ask her first prior to make a DR. As this picture is showcased in the WM blog, I think this DR timing is unfair. It seems that poor girl became a victime of the conflicts between some of our contributors and WMF (see Jcb's comment above). (The scene looks like a restaurant; so it is possible to place the camera on a nearby object, set 10s self timer, and take this shot. I didn't see anybody accept my doubt in Commons:Deletion requests/File:I am blue.jpg.) Jee 12:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Totally irrelevant DR in that it was purely on scope issues. As to the timing, the fact it is in use on a WMF blog is what alerted an editor to the issue, and regardless of that, contributors to this project can DR problematic files at any time they like. Seriously, your comments are irrelevant and out-of-line. russavia (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Of course Jee's comment is relevant! It points to a precedence. It does not matter what the reason for nomination of DR is! Do you really think that all arguments that are not adressing the specific nomination reason are invalid?! Are all copyright concerns irrelevant ecause an image was nominated for scope?! You cannot be serious. To accuse Jee to be out of line is absurd. --Dschwen (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Dschwen, it is totally out-of-line for any editor to attack others for nominating images when there is clearly an issue. There is also no precedent. Look at the links he points to. He points to this photo which the Flickr user says was taken by her boyfriend. It's (C) ARR. So it isn't an issue for us. He points to her Flickr profile which is totally irrelevant. He points to this image which he says was manipulated in Photoshop to remove elements from it. Again, totally irrelevant. The only thing which is relevant is that this Flickr photographer has a lot of auto-portraits, which would indicate that she likely has a tripod and uses timers or a remote of sorts. This would tie in with her statements on Facebook. COM:PRP talks about reasonable doubt, so I dunno, perhaps I am just retarded, but exactly where is the precedent? russavia (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                        • Maybe it says all that stuff on the flickr page, but in the image description that image still lists the depicted subject as the author. So either we assume she used a self time, or we accept the fact that some images are taken by proxy through third parties. --Dschwen (talk) 14:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                          • "we accept the fact that some images are taken by proxy through third parties." If that is what you wish to accept, then I suggest you that you start a discussion to change policy, because it has been long-standing practice (and policy) on Commons for only the copyright holders to be able to release their photos under a free licence. Images taken by proxy still require the consent of the author. There is this interesting issue where a kid in India took photos using someone's camera; in that case it is entirely likely that the kid holds copyright. If these photos were uploaded to Commons they would clearly be COM:PRP issues, due to "The copyright owner will not bother to sue or cannot afford to." being a key point of PRP. I am really struggling to again remind people that these issues affect Commons, and we should never lower these standards because the uploader is a WMF project contributor, or because the WMF is using an image in a blog post. I will point you to this fact sheet from the Australian copyright council, which in the section entitled "The general rule—the “author” is usually the first owner of copyright", it states "For photographs, the author is the person who takes the photograph." It also goes on to say that this general rule may not apply if "the work is a commissioned photograph, portrait or engraving..." We need the uploader to state clearly, and honestly, under what circumstances this photo was taken. Or COM:PRP has to apply, unfortunately. russavia (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep if the author say so. DSC-WX1 has a self timer. Jee 02:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Seriously? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have messaged Luis Villa. Maybe he can point us to some relevant material or offer some guidance. --Dschwen (talk) 15:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, "we shouldn't make our requirements any more lax for editors on our projects, because we certainly don't give others this consideration, and nor should we"? Is this a presumption that the requirements have been lax for me just because I am an editor on a project?
  • Secondly, "elite"? Wow, nice to know that I have been placed in this social group that I myself am not even aware of.
  • Thirdly, "if this was anyone but a Wikipedia editor, we would be raising the same questions, and rightly so"? There seems to be a gross assumption here that Wikipedia editors receive special treatment. Whatever it is between Wikipedia editors and others, I do not wish to be caught in between the dispute.
  • Fourthly, I find this deletion request extremely disgraceful, immature, and petty. This deletion request was started based on an assumption. Rather than asking me on my talk page and avoiding all this hassle, the nominator chose to put my image up for deletion based on his premature assumption and narrow-mindedness. Wow... just wow. I see this is what Wikimedia Commons has degraded to in the past one year.
  • Fifthly, yes, this image is mine. Yes, I took it myself. There is a self-timer on the camera. Try to Google "selfies" and learn something about this trend that is very popular among young people, please.
  • Finally, I hope my explanation clarifies and clears all doubts. Whatever the outcome of the deletion request, this will be my last comment here. I find no point in continuing a discussion with someone who does not practice AGF and makes a mountain out of a molehill based on his assumptions. This is extremely disgraceful, offensive, and a waste of my time. Bejinhan talks 18:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Keep The only reason to doubt the good faith description of Bejinhan of how the photo came to be is if somebody else were coming forward to claim ownership. Unnecessary and unkind nomination. -Pete F (talk) 21:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pete, you are presenting a COM:PRP argument above. There is enough evidence to doubt the actual authorship of the image. User:Bejinhan notes herself that this was taken in a hotel restaurant and was with family at the time.[1] The camera was obviously placed on its side to take the photograph, and it is at a low level above table (obviously not sitting on the table). From the EXIF it was later edited in Quicktime, probably to rotate it a little. Her arms are resting on the table, so there is also the issue of keeping the camera upright (remembering it is on its side) when she places them back onto the table after setting the timer, sitting back down and putting her arms back on the table. Then there is the "issue" that the composition is almost too perfect, something that is very difficult to achieve with so-called "selfies" (which are most often taken with the person holding the camera/phone, and more often than not at weird angles). And all of this was done in 10 seconds, which I believe is the maximum timer setting on this camera, and one would also expect the timer setting being evident in the EXIF data; which it is not. The most likely way the photo was taken is that a family member sitting across from her was holding the camera sideways, above the table, the subject smiled and the camera went click. It really doesn't make any sense to go through an elaborate setup in a hotel restaurant to take a selfie with a timer (which was noted on this DR the camera had, and is the only thing Bejinhan can remember about this photo being taken). That it was taken by a family member needn't be a problem, we just need people to acknowledge this, as there very well could have been a verbal transfer of copyright with said family member, and then we could just have the person submit to COM:OTRS, which is going to be necessary in this case as it will place the onus back on the subject as to the veracity of the image and its copyright status, and put this DR to rest. Anything less than that is doing a disservice to our project. russavia (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's not PRP -- I simply see no reason to doubt the uploader's good faith assertion that she took the photo. Your choice to work toward proving that her statement is inaccurate seems strange to me, and difficult to reconcile with COM:AGF; but you're right, if you can prove that it wasn't a self-timer, and she doesn't offer clarification, I'd need to retract my "keep" vote. But thus far you haven't done that. I am not familiar with the model of camera, so your assertion that it would note the use of the self-timer in the EXIF isn't persuasive to me in itself. But this whole DR seems petty to me. You might be successful in getting it deleted and raining on her parade, but what will you accomplish by doing that? Protecting the integrity of Commons? Bah. -Pete F (talk) 22:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm curious, too -- you introduced your vote with the statement "sorry to be nitpicky, but..." Were you truly sorry? If so, why did you go on to do the thing for which you felt remorse? If not, why did you lie? If you're asking us to look at things under a microscope, it would help for you to address that. -Pete F (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Sorry Bejinhan if you feel hounded; thanks Pete F for your wise words. I revisited the camera specs once again. It has a wonderful Smile Shutter feature. So she can take picture with taking more than 10s time. More over she can even ask one of her colleages to simply hold the camera after making enough setting by herself (Intelligent Auto Mode + Smile Shutter). I don't know whether a person simply hold the camera get copyright. (We need to need these type of detailed postmortem though since Bejinhan already clarified that she simply used the self timer.) Jee 04:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Imperial- jeu de société.jpg

[edit]

Shows copyrighted board game. The photo itself might be free, but not the subject. Should be on en WP with a fair-use rationale if anywhere (except there's already a better image there...) SnowFire (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Commons:Derivative work. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Backup of news bpaper.jpg

[edit]

Either a copyright violation of a newspaper, or likely out of COM:SCOPE as advertising. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penissize2.JPG

[edit]

Low quality penis photo, and iirc there are issues with Euro copyright. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - runenorwegian

Deleted: as nom Natuur12 (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nestor Guillermo Alvarez y el Gobernador Dr. Eduardo Fellner.jpg

[edit]

No me sirve Ailestor (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Personal photo, out of scope. - Fma12 (talk) 03:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:This image is a pic of a transvestite from Trowbridge, a local celebrity fighting the good fight for equal right- 2014-01-02 15-28.jpg

[edit]

This appears to be nothing but a personal image, and thus falls out of COM:SCOPE Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyvio as well, see photo at bottom (direct link)--Auric (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BanderaEsp.jpg

[edit]

Unused flag of exceptionally poor quality; we have better versions in other formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CarlosSkinfill.JPG

[edit]

The picture uploaded has no permit to be public 70.189.147.100 07:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The uploader Jazz Magazine supports deletion, as you can see here. Taivo (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:45344839 ಕನ್ಯಾಣ ಕೋಡಿ.jpg

[edit]

file is an image presumably of kanyana Cody, language is Kannada, but the image is low quality, generic, gives no information on the locale, and its use there is trivial at best. category is also up for deletion by me Mercurywoodrose (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to have been lifted from Panoramio (larger version with EXIF). This version probably from [2].--Auric (talk) 14:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom + probably copyvio JurgenNL (talk) 10:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CGO 180 180.jpg

[edit]

Logo, it even have (r) on the picture! Hangsna (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the logotype for Cybergymnasiet, the company / school that I work for. Is there any problem with it?

Its copyrighted and therefore not free. /Hangsna (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Masdar city (1).jpg

[edit]

COM:FOP#United Arab Emirates. 84.61.176.82 10:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Allison and Angela.jpg

[edit]

private, unused image, out of scope Torsch (talk) 11:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Amsterdam Spotting.jpg

[edit]

Unused private image, out of scope Torsch (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ana Isabel García Aguilar.jpg

[edit]

Unused private image, out of scope Torsch (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Perro hombre.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, unsed in persoanl pages; may be a joke Ciaurlec (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ftp01.png

[edit]

File needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.153.214 12:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:02, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SHINE10.JPG

[edit]

Possible copyvio per http://ent.163.com/photoview/51GQ0003/462489.html#p=873VH7IS51GQ0003 Auric (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lady gaga aura cover 2014-01-03 07-38.jpg

[edit]

This is a copyrighted image created by the user IndianBio (talk) 13:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: speedydeleted at 3 January by EugeneZelenko JurgenNL (talk) 11:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:CELEBRATION.JPG

[edit]

out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cinema Ritrovato - 2009.jpg

[edit]

Derative of a poster. Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vulcano Buono - Inside.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Italy JurgenNL (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kazakhstan page banner.jpg

[edit]

by mistake, i created duplicate of File:Altai (Kazakhstan)-banner.jpg Saqib (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo MEC.jpg

[edit]

Unidentifiable logo or organization. Not in use in any article, out of scope. - Fma12 (talk) 14:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo MEC.png

[edit]

Unidentifiable logo or organization. Not in use in any article, out of scope. - Fma12 (talk) 14:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cinema italiano in bianco-nero.jpg

[edit]

A lot of derative's. Those pictures or not likely to be his own work since some of them look like promotional photographs. (Example: the Sophia Loren Photograph) Permission from the copyrightholder(s) of those photographs is required. Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:AnneSeleneFIKO.jpg

[edit]

Unused private image, out of scope Torsch (talk) 15:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:- The Number 1 Stunna! 2014-01-01 18-22.png

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Саша Глинин.jpg..jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Asli urang sungai turak 2014-01-01 21-36.JPG

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Be active always 2014-01-01 10-21.jpg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:("Marco Antonio Lopez Nuñez,como,ciencia,creé esta imagen")("JPEG")(JFIF") 2013-11-21 15-56.jpeg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:-3 We ar anonymous 2013-11-16 09-03.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arbër Xhema.jpg

[edit]

Unused private image, out of scope Torsch (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Fashiontheories.цом.png

[edit]

File needs an OTRS ticket 91.66.153.214 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: And I doubt if there is any educational value Natuur12 (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Anand sirohiya 2013-10-31 14-13.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arshad Warsi-Study at bcom-At Choti Bhandsar Purnea Bihar-I m small busnessmen 2013-11-27 16-29.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Baku 2013-08-07 03-31.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bengodetravajar 2013-12-07 17-11.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bennnnnnn----- 2013-12-03 02-18.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bless America 2013-11-22 01-23.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BLC 2013-08-14 22-58.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Blitz- 2013-11-18 15-39.jpg

[edit]

out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Buket Aslan 2013-07-18 10-25.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Burak Tosun'un Resmi 2013-12-15 23-02.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hehehe 2014-01-03 18-25.jpg

[edit]

Used to vandalize pages on en.wiki NawlinWiki (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:M60 Phoenix.jpg

[edit]

Apparent copyright violation. Uploaded as "own work" but seems to be copied from [3] bobrayner (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:I want to give a tremendes fool proof proposal for employment to 1 crore people app all over india with out single penny expence-revenue to the govt app 72000 crores per year-i can give this project to the top 2014-01-01 20-56.jpg

[edit]

Self promotional. B25es (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Nice clean article2.jpg

[edit]

Deleted: okey Natuur12 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:REDUIT PAQUETE 1.jpg

[edit]

Advertisement, out of scope 4ing (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wikipedia2.GIF

[edit]

useless image Igor523 (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Konstrukce s hodinami na radnici.jpg

[edit]

špatná kvalita RomanM82 (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erect micropenis.jpg

[edit]

Low quality penis image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, but encyclopedic value. --Hans Haase (talk,express talk) 23:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree: see Category:Micropenis, where we have high quality images, rather than this low quality one. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 23:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE per nom. INeverCry 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Penarol campmundo.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2077 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tristan suarez 1975.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2070 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ferro campeon 1985.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2080 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cortijo ferro.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2080 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 03:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Periodic table without symbols.jpg

[edit]

Picturecollection without information of sourcepictures, used only in userpage, includes some person pictures. Motopark (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this picture doesn't have any sources. But I have given directions where to find these files. There are so many obscure elements in the periodic table and you cannot find them all at home. But I have used cc images and been very careful when done so, and all pictures can be found on Wikimedia commons without much effort. The pictures of people are there to honor them and not to degrade them. If it was this aspect Motopark considered, I don't know. His/her explanation is a bit fuzzy. /Pixelmaniac pictures

Deleted: We don't keep personal art. This has a CC-NC-ND logo in the lower right corner. It does not correctly attribute any of the images. Several of the sources are redlinks. All in all, it will take a lot of work to make this acceptable from a copyright point of view and even then it will be out of scope.. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:00, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Periodic table with symbols.jpg

[edit]

Picturecollection without information of sourcepictures, used only in userpage, includes some person pictures. Motopark (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have added all sources and made sure that I have the rights to publish the image. Please return to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Periodic_table_with_symbols.jpg#.7B.7Bint:filedesc.7D.7D to confirm it. The pictures of people are there to honor them and not to degrade them. If it was this aspect Motopark considered, I don't know. His/her explanation is a bit fuzzy. User talk:Pixelmaniac pictures

Deleted: As in the previous case, this fails as personal art, and does not have correct attributions for any of the images that require them. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Randy Rhoads.jpg

[edit]

Now that I've edited the file, it looks very much like a non-free image and not a shot from say, the crowd. Mlpearc (powwow) 05:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ivy varigated (Hedera).jpg

[edit]

No usage on Wikkipedeia Aftabbanoori (talk) 05:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Not a reason for deletion .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Artist Artist Roberto Jones - painting number 002.jpg

[edit]

Do we provide free webhosting services for non-notable artists? i cannot find any info on this artist, who as an uploader has uploaded a few dozen of his works, and created a category for them. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyvio -- although the name is similar we have no evidence of permission from the artist -- OTRS would be required. Also, as MWR says, we do not host works of non-notable artists. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:BFO.GIF

[edit]

this is not a company logo, its just an excuse to talk about a subject. we dont need a TLA for a common phrase Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sunglasses necessary (8622635479).jpg

[edit]

some people sitting around; out of scope, no educational uses Tortie tude (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Allianz Riviera Vue Nord-Ouest2 280613.JPG

[edit]

COM:FOP#France. 84.61.176.82 09:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cardinal Norman Gilroy visits schoolchildren.jpg

[edit]

While PD in Australia, this file does not enter US public domain until 2019. (Originally reported in en.wiki) Cube00 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question When was the picture take, if it was taken before 1 January 1946 then it would not have been subject to URAA and would be free in the US. COM:PRP will probably require us to delete if it cant be worked out though. LGA talkedits 21:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: He became a Cardinal in February 1946, so unless the image caption is wrong, this is too late. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Christer Strömholm-Katalog-1978.jpg

[edit]

Photo of a catalogue, from 1978 so not free with PD-old. Also in the picture is a photo by professional photographer "Christer Strömholm" made for an exhibition, that photo must be considered "art" not just a photo. Hangsna (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ja det är väl bara för er att plocka bort den då, jag anande det, men jag ville iaf försöka. Jonn Leffmann (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jag såg att detta funkar på engeksla Wiki, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Winogrand.jpg, varför funkar inte Christer Strömholm på Svenska Wiki. Jonnmann (Diskussion) 22:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:IANS logo 2.png

[edit]

Useless without a description (Which IANS???) 91.66.153.214 12:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Maquuste On.jpg

[edit]

Useless without a description 91.66.153.214 12:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Christian Enrique Magaña Lopez.JPG

[edit]

personal photo, no educational value Avron (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jamnitzerplatz.JPG

[edit]

Unscharfer Hintergrund Aarp65 (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The background does not appear to be Blurred.--Auric (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep. To my eyes the whole left edge of the image is blurry. But in the thumbnail it's barely noticeable, and in the absence of a better replacement I'm in favor of keeping this. Lupo 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:LadyGagaArtRave - Statue of ARTPOP.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted Art piece subjugated and failing FOP IndianBio (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atlanta1973.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2068 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atlanta 1983.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2078 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Atlanta1983.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2078 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boca atlanta 1984.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2079 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ruggeri 1986.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2081 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Superclasico 1981.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2076 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Carlos Berrueta.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2079 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Merlo-1978.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2073 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pedro Gonzalez River 1979.jpeg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2074 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ernesto Mastrangelo.jpg

[edit]

This image has a Commons:URAA problem. In the US its still copyrighted until end of 2072 (95 years after publication). - Fma12 (talk) 13:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lvo.jpg

[edit]

This image seems a capture of a larger historical map Pierre cb (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is in use and, as the nom says, appears to be from an old map. Since this style of wind rose is several hundred years old, I think we can safely keep it. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Flag of the Republic of China Military Police.jpg

[edit]

There is a SVG format of this picture. Akira123 (talk) 15:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We do not delete pre-existing raster files when a vector file is created. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Moonwalk 1 (8973491920).jpg

[edit]

This is ARR Andy Warhol, so not public domain as its not a NASA work. Undelete in 2058. russavia (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:West Allis family.webm

[edit]

As far as I know there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the USA Pristurus (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ben Hulsman (1974).jpg

[edit]

Identification by the source is wrong Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: file moved. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1391532 572016959525860 140071312 n.jpg.jpeg

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Taiwan Garrison Command Flag.JPG

[edit]

There is a SVG format of this picture. Akira123 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: We do not delete existing raster files when a vector file is created. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Design alla Triennale.jpg

[edit]

Couple of deratives of paintings. The paintings look like modern art and are probadly not in the public domain. The picture seem te be have taken indoors and there is no FoP in Italy. Natuur12 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the art is in the public domain and the where it is on show is a design museum. Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dharmachari guruma.jpg

[edit]

Higher resolution file of same image uploaded at File:Buddhist nun Dharmachari Guruma.jpg Karrattul (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yener Çevik.jpg

[edit]

Wikimedia Commons license file is installed in error Caglarctr (talk) 16:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Daniel Engong avec son manager.jpg

[edit]

uploader is not the author 91.66.153.214 16:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PRIP.81309636.11.2.jpg

[edit]

"Own work" ????? 91.66.153.214 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:男性器 2014-01-04 01-30.jpg

[edit]

I think we have enough images of that and this one adds no new knowledge. Rahul Bott (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A 2014-01-03 15-46.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: INeverCry 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:House in deep valley - geograph.org.uk - 635687.jpg

[edit]

This photograph was taken illegally from private grounds wthout the permission of the people who live there Trees and Fields (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I've restored the text so that those considering this image can have the maximum amount of information. It seems there is a conflict between the photographer and the nominator as to where the former was; that can presumably be resolved by Google Earth (which I do not have available). I'm not sure we delete images of objects visible from public places on privacy grounds, except possibly as a courtesy. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The text is misleading to the public. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
If the image is deleted, so will the text. Meanwhile, I think it has to stay as it shows where the photographer thinks he was standing, assuming that the geocoding is correct, and is of use in assessing the privacy issue. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This image has already been deleted from Geographdue to the fact it was taken on private property without the knowledge and permission of the residents. The caption makes an untrue statement and causes problems for the people living there. The property is not visible from a public place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
Is there some Law in the UK that makes this image illegal ? The person who took it may be guilty of trespass but that would not make in and of its self make the photo illegal. I am sympathetic to the owners of the building, but am can't find a Commons policy that says we should remove it. LGA talkedits 02:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with this image, beside the fact that it WAS taken illegally is that the caption states that a pulic right of way exists. It does not and never did. That is why this image is causing problems for the occupants whoes right to simple privacy is being violated by its pulication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
  •  Comment If kept, the description can be rectified (there is no public footpath on the definitive map). There have been several previous instances of UK house owners trying to get a Geograph image taken down. Some have been kept, some deleted. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Southam Fields Farm - geograph.org.uk - 1491187.jpg may closest analog - it was kept. What I would say is there's hardly a substantive privacy violation here, and alleged trespass by the photographer is not a significant factor in itself.
  • That said I see no real benefit from keeping this image. eg The house has no historic significance - if it was listed I would be in favour of keeping it regardless of this complaint. The fact its just a run-of-the-mill house means its of limited educational value, makes me inclined to favour deletion.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Google maps shows a well worn footpath here, Google Streetview shows posts similar to the ones found all over the UK that hold a sign for a public footpath only the sign has been removed and the post now stands there without purpose, there are enough indications to suspect that the claim that no public right of way exists is not a truthful one. The image should be kept a a record of the footpath something which is of interest and in scope here Oxyman (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Oxyman. What are you talking about? Google shows no such thing. There is no public footpath here. How many times do I have to say this! You people have NO local knowledge and are acting as a self-appointed judge & jury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
 Comment Google does not determine what are and are not public rights of way. The Local Authority Definitive Map does. Reference to this will show you that the photographer was trespassing deeply into private grounds to take the shot. The caption is wrong and is a open invitation, published by you, for people to do the same. Please remove them both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
@Trees and Fields When was the footpath diverted, please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Footpath was diverted in 2009, however the original route did NOT run where the photographer says it does and she had to walk a long way off it to get the shot.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)
 Comment The definitive map clearly shows no PROW approaching the buildings at present. That's not relevant to this photo, which predates the diversion. The out-of-date map on MAGIC indicates the PROW passed through the complex, and judging from larger-scale mapping it was at most 20m from the photographer's location. Its impossible to say definitively but I imagine this face of the building is visible from the path.

If kept the caption would have to reflect the fact the path is no longer a PROW, but I'd reiterate my lack of interest in this photo, my preference is to  Delete unless someone can demonstrate real value in this image (not just inclusionism for the sake of it).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The former path passed through woodland which, at the time, obscured this view of the property and offered no direct access to the point at which it was taken. The photographer approached this position by entering a gate over 400 yards back and walking through three fields to get the shot. The photo was removed from Geograph for this reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trees and Fields (talk • contribs)

Deleted: Although I am generally reluctant to delete legal images on request, particulalry when the request comes from one who doesn;t even bother to sign his posts and who has been disingenuous about the staus of this image, but it is a small, dark, slightly blurred image of an undistinguished house in a category where we have more than 300 images. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A- 2013-09-05 09-51.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Adı-Fikret-Soyadi-Hüseynov-Tam adı-Fikret Faiq oğlu Huseynov-Tevellüd-23-08-1977(36yaş)-İşi-İşadamı- 2013-11-18 03-11.jpg

[edit]

out of project scope Didym (talk) 17:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Akhenaton Nzimbu, élève du collège saint Joseph(Elikya)- 2013-12-11 22-22.jpg

[edit]

unused user image, out of project scope Didym (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hellenism in the Near East 1918.jpg

[edit]

Still no proof George Soteriadis died more than 70 years ago. Deleted previously and uploaded again with no proof. Cube00 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep He died in 1942 - it is written with a source in bg wiki.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Restored per http://pandektis.ekt.gr/pandektis/handle/10442/58691, Soteriadis died in 1942. Greece is 70 years pma. URAA does not apply because the work was published in 1918. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dương Vật.jpg

[edit]

out of scope: low quality photograph of a penis JurgenNL (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Trai suc vat.jpg

[edit]

a scanning of book's cover isn't a common file. AlleinStein (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:REDUIT TRATAMIENTO 2.jpg

[edit]

advertisement, out of scope 4ing (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Novye-trolleybusy- kostroma.jpg

[edit]
  •  Delete: there is no evidence that the image, which is the exact same resolutoin as that displayed on this webpage, is the work of the uploader, who removed the previous copyvio notice. This appears to be a false copyright claim, with no metadata and low resolution and because the website image predates any edits of this image by the uploader. Ww2censor (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tom Sachs-Trocadero.jpg

[edit]

Artwork of contemporary artists. There is no freedom of panorama in France.
Statues on both sides of the place by
Paul Cornet (1892-1977)
Pryas, born Jean Paris, (1895-1985)
Alexandre Descatoire (1874-1949)
Marcel Gimond (1894-1961)
Robert Couturier (1905-2008)
Louis Brasseur (1870-1960)

and an exhibition of Tom Sachs in the middle. P e z i (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paris France (9898900225).jpg

[edit]

There is no freedom of panorama in France.
Statues by following artists:
Paul Cornet (1892-1977)
Pryas, born Jean Paris, (1895-1985)
Alexandre Descatoire (1874-1949)
Marcel Gimond (1894-1961)
P e z i (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The statues are de minimis, but the building won't be out copyright until 2048. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palais de Chaillot from the Eiffel Tower, Paris March 2011.jpg

[edit]

The architects of the Palais de Chaillot have not been dead for at least 70 years: Léon Azéma, †1978; Louis-Hippolyte Boileau † 1948, Jacques Carlu, † 1976, and there is no freedom of panorama in France P e z i (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Palais de Chaillot 1, Paris 2012.jpg

[edit]

Sculpture by Robert Couturier (1905-2008). There is no freedom of panorama in France. P e z i (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coat of Arms of Pirtskhalaishvili Family COA.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Jaqeli as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: This family does not have any coat of arms as its neither royal nor noble so this nonsense should be deleted. Yann (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: seems to be made up Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windows 8 wallpaper.jpg

[edit]

This a screenshot of Windows 8. Its wallpaper is copyrighted. 89.72.28.182 20:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that you keep an eye on. Would you like to use it somewhere? --Rezonansowy (talk) 10:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I wouldn't say no to changing my wallpaper to something new from time to time, but are you asking that because of my response time? Well, it was quite a coincident. That said, you must consider renaming the image, so that mistake nominations like this don't happen. A disclaimer (stating that it somewhat resembles Windows 8 wallpaper but is not the same) wouldn't hurt. Ask someone who knows about the flower to identify them. Since you are the uploader, your rename request is quickly accepted. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: . Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Chiral allen Ax.PNG

[edit]

Pixelated and unused, have File:Chiral sym CCCXYXY.svg DMacks (talk) 21:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PaavstiPust.jpg

[edit]

This picture is a derivative job of a copyrighted work. There is no FoP in France, sorry Jebulon (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lewiszwerg.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work that does not identify original author. Kelly (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jimzwerg.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work that does not identify original author. Kelly (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:This is a expensive place 1970-01-01 20-07.jpg

[edit]

The low resolution of this image does not seem to provide any useful content that would realistically be used for any educational purpose. The very vague and ambiguous title "This is an expensive place" does not provide a good indication of why this place is expensive, the picture does not show this, and there does not seem to be educational value derived from this. This image therefore falls outside of Commons:Scope. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: No description, no cat, no keep. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Heidegger Martin.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio. Author is Thomas Paltzer. See [4] — Racconish Tk 23:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:I like this image because it's showing peace to the world by being happy and show a smile to show peace to the world!☆☆☆☆ 2014-01-03 22-29.jpg

[edit]

out of com:scope McZusatz (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC) NOTE: I have moved this file to File:Girl making a v-sign.jpg during the course of this DR.[reply]

  • Although I suspect this is a self-portrait/selfie, and if the user wants to place it on her own user page, that would be sufficient reason to keep (though it should be renamed). - Jmabel ! talk 01:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Paola Rey at Corruption Party 2.jpg

[edit]

La imagen que acompaña al articulo "Paola Rey" no es la imagen de la actriz. Se trata de una fotografía errónea. 79.148.36.226 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per above. whym (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Levent010.jpg

[edit]

 Delete The uploader used the {{FAL}} tag that was later removed by the uploader. The source website states that commercial use and removal of their logo is not permitted per this page, so the image is not free enough for us to keep. Ww2censor (talk) 23:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom, significant chance of copyright violation. whym (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Concerns over author identity R. J. Maranan

[edit]

Concerns over the authorship raised in 2008 but never addressed. The user has not responded to a query on their talk page regarding this issue. Nominating for deletion per COM:PRP Cube00 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Heinkel He 112.JPG

[edit]

No evidence for PD-old given. The photographer could still be alive High Contrast (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no information who was the photographer this could be a candidate for Anonymous-EU. If this high-use file is to be deleted please replace it first, maybe with File:He112FARR.jpg --19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
On what is your "there is no photographer given"-thesis based on? Can you bring valid evidence for that? --High Contrast (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete This file will be deleted -- if you want it replaced, please do so at once. Please remember that the fact that we do not know who the photographer was does not make an image "anonymous" -- that requires that the uploader prove beyond a significant doubt that the photographer took the necessary steps to remain anonymous. Our lack of knowledge is not proof. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per Jim Natuur12 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mkhitar Zargaryan.jpg

[edit]

Want to delete it MkhitarZargaryan (talk) 05:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mkhitar Zargaryan.jpg

[edit]

Want to delete it MkhitarZargaryan (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Narayanhiti Palace Museum 002.jpg

[edit]

the uploader has stated that the photo was "Bought from a shop in Nepal, then scanned and saved on to the computer." Therefore it is not PD-Self and a copyvio. Greenshed (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slag aan de Sabis.jpg

[edit]

I made another version of the image (called "Battle of the Sabis (Selle).png"), but didn't make it an alternate version of the original image so I could give it an English name that also refers to the fact that the "Sabis" here corresponds to the Selle river. The original file was linked to in three Wikipedia articles, I have already manually fixed the links so the newer image appears there. --Wimpi (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pickaninnies feast on watermelon.jpg

[edit]

Original source is not indicated. The website authentichistory.com gives no indication of the source this has been scanned from, apart from stating this is from the 1890s. There is no way of verifying this assertion.

Note, the later upload of a higher resolution (from http://abagond.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/1890sc_engraving-pickaninnies_with_watermelon.jpg) was also sourced to authentichistory.com, according to the watermark, and to that extent the blog it was found on is not an alternative source. Fæ (talk) 09:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Old enough IMO. Yann (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pickaninnies feast on watermelon.jpg

[edit]

The original uploader has been recently blocked for cross-wiki harassment and abusing multiple accounts. As a result I have gone back to look again at this image and I remain concerned about the source and dating of this scanned print.

  • To date there has been no way of confirming the suggested publication period of 1890s.
  • The source website gives no confidence of where this image was taken from, or who may have originally scanned it.
  • The original publication may easily have been outside the USA, or a retrospective "Boy's Own" type publication after 1-Jan-1923 there is no means of confirming copyright without significant doubt.
  • The content and title (using "Pickaninnies") gives highly racist stereotypes of both white and black people, so I believe that Commons should be conservative in how to estimate whether there is significant doubt as to copyright in this case or not.
  • The previous DR closed with only one neutral comment and the viewpoint of the closing admin being expressed, I believe this deserves longer consideration due to the nature of its content and so am re-raising on this basis without intending to target any individual.

Thanks Fæ (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deteted: Seems like a significant doubt to me. Natuur12 (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Relly Komaruzaman.png

[edit]

I must hide my true identity. This ID card is my privacy. Relly Komaruzaman Talk 12:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader request russavia (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Relly Komaruzaman.png

[edit]

False authorship claims - has been pblished previously on the web (2009): [5] High Contrast (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per reaction at File talk:Relly Komaruzaman.png. --Martin H. (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zargaryan Mkhitar.jpg

[edit]

Just want to delete my file MkhitarZargaryan (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zargaryan Mkhitar.jpg

[edit]

Just want to delete my file MkhitarZargaryan (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Adidas Jabulani

[edit]

Whilst the balls are utilitarian objects, the designs on the ball are copyrightable, and these files should be deleted as being derivatives of copyrightable works.

russavia (talk) 16:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Per nom. Those pictures clearly have the purpose of illustrating the bal's desing. Natuur12 (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Dexia Tower in Brussels

[edit]

Modern building in Belgium. The architect hasn't been dead for 70 years yet.

Stefan4 (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete probably copyvio from [6] (here [7]) for File:Rogier Tower at night.jpg. ----MGuf (d) 13:34, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Most images seem not to be uploaded for showing the building, but for showing the artwork on it – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAb(au) . At least the image I uploaded is doing so. Maybe then they just need to be retitled according to artwork name? --T-O UPET (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork on the building is also copyrighted and can't be used until at the earliest 70 years after the death of the person who made that artwork. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Please transfer File:Dexia Tower.jpg, File:DexiaTowerLights.jpg and File:Touch-rogier.jpg to de wikipedia before deletion. If you don't want to do it please in form me and I will do it. --Nachcommonsverschieber (talk) 05:34, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dexia Tower.jpg also violates the photographer's copyright (grabbed from [8]), so uploading it to German Wikipedia sounds like a bad idea. File:Touch-rogier.jpg also seems to violate the photographer's copyright as it appeared at http://www.neorealismovirtuale.com/2009/07/dexia-tower/ (although in smaller resolution than on Commons) before it was uploaded here. I suggest that you only copy File:DexiaTowerLights.jpg to German Wikipedia, and find other photos to replace the ones you mentioned. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: There is no FOP in Belgium FASTILY 20:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Dexia Tower in Brussels

[edit]

No FOP in Belgium

russavia (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Torre Velasca (Milan)

[edit]

No FOP in Italy. it:Lodovico Barbiano di Belgiojoso is the architect who died the latest in 2004, so undelete in 2075.

russavia (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Barbarajohnson1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Probably not own work, no permission, as per other uploads of this user.

Yann (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these images match up with those on the subject's Instagram page, but they're presented in worse quality, so the original is probably elsewhere. Note that images 9 and 7 match Instagram's image resolution. Per the discussion at w:en:Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#CK_Morgan, I suspect that the uploader does own the images, but nonetheless hasn't properly released copyright.

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Bosphorusdigital (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I'm not sure these images are in scope.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Charles Etienne Jean NORGA (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents which should be replaced with wiki markup.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dollymaniacoargentino (talk · contribs)

[edit]
English: How do we know any of these images didn't have a copyright notice, and/or weren't registered with the copyright office?
Español: ¿Cómo sabemos que estas imágenes no tenían una noticia de derecho de autor, y/o no tenían un registro con la oficina estadounidense de copyright?

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Porque se tratan de imágenes ilustrativas de notas periodísticas, las hay en Commos de Cher o Lily Tomlin. Se puede ver claramente que en el periódico en el que fueron publicadas no dicen pertenecer a ningún autor. En estas imágenes, paso lo mismo que en otras como esta Imagen de Cher

See also here, which explains that publicity photos were traditionally not copyrighted.

Deleted: Two from AP and one from CBS. Images authored by news companies are not publicity photos and will always have a copyright. The Cher image is a publicity photo. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Justtobeatforbes (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope and maybe cyberbullying JurgenNL (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)

[edit]

I have deleted several pictures by this uploader as copyright violations or derivative works. Given this I am not sure we can trust them. In this 1303 files are old postcards which are claimed as "I the copyright holder", suspicious borders, probable FoP violations, etc. I grant you a lot of these images are likely perfectly fine, but given there are some which state (photos: Internet) I think we must apply PRP. On second thoughts, a mass deletion is probably an overreaction, but the user's images certainly need a going through to weed out the problems. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of files
* File:Peintres Tiers zodiacal 3.jpg

-mattbuck (Talk) 21:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Ugh, there's no way to give a suitable blanket vote to this DR — the lot is too vast and heterogenous to be dealt like this. I tried to make a few sectorial DRs for the most obvious cases, but it is but a small dent. -- Tuválkin ✉ 03:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unsuitable format of text only tables, even if content could be considered on topic: Lists of celebrities sorted by what amounts to be birthdate? Better have it as wikitext tables on pages, linked and sourced from the respective biographical categories (if at all).

-- Tuválkin ✉ 03:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

about tables

[edit]

I tried to introduce them on wikipedia, but they were deleted as unsignificant.I know that every person is much more than just the sign where the sun is and that everyone is much more like a puzzle which has to be built by a qualified astrolog, which I'm not, but I think it may be interesant to discover a tendance of the characters. - About the others pictures, which I took myself, I think they correspond with the purpose of the encyclopedy. - Sincerely - --Martin Greslou (talk) 10:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)

[edit]

OK, I'm withdrawing the other DR, but these say "Photos: Internet". No source for the images.

-mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Text documents which should be replaced with wiki tables.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Martin Greslou (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Tabular data in simple text.

-- Tuválkin ✉ 05:53, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Obiwan3500 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All incorrectly licensed (the uploader has a hard time being the subject, seeing as the subject is apparently dead). All out of scope. To quote from Wikipedia: Wikipedia is not a memorial for your deceased friend.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Shannon mccain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused user images, out of project scope

Didym (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 11:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Svetit (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Personal artwork with no educational value.

-mattbuck (Talk) 01:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This artworks has a value because these are artworks under creative commons license.
This in not usual in Belarusian landscape.
With the help of these work belarusian creative commons comunity will pr the licences.
If to speak about posters. These posters belong to Falanster community and Zabej community in Belarus.
This is community of people making social experiments. And on the falanster site you can find different events in which a lot of people took part.
-svetit 10:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC+3)

Deleted: The only Google hits for this artist are these images. We do not keep art work by artists who have not achieved a certain notability and this one apparently has none. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Svetit (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. Fylers with no educational value.

𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 00:28, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These posters are used in specific article. Why do you want to delete them? They are also under free licenses.~ Svetit (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, these posters are not currently used on any page on a Wikimedia project. The deletion rationale is stated in the nomination. Licensing is not the only inclusion criterion on Commons. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 18:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:52, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by الكاتب بكر الكاكوني (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused user images, out of project scope

Didym (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User:Flominator/Flinfo/Preview

[edit]

upload error Gaujmalnieks (talk) 00:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination #1

made a mistake while uploading using the "Flinfo"-tool; this useless page is that mistake.... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted      Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

User:Flominator/Flinfo/Preview

[edit]

Página en blanco Edubucher (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, againYmblanter (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Edward_VIII_(face).jpg

[edit]

Artist died in 1943. PD-old license properly removed by User:Pieter Kuiper who did not then complete the deletion process. howcheng {chat} 05:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete: painting is copyrighted until 2013. — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 18:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Dschwen (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Edward VIII (face).jpg

[edit]

Undeletion date didn't take URAA into account, this was not PD in the source country (UK) on 1 January 1996. January (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gare Courcelles-Levallois (Paris 17e).jpg

[edit]

looks like an old postcard or similar, but not like own work as stated. JuTa 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monaco overview.jpg

[edit]

This is personal photo, do not want it here. Also, here can be found a lot of images of this country already, from the same place. Its not used, and its only 84 KB. Delete it Anastan (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: No reason for deletion. JurgenNL (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monaco overview.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation. Please delete it. More informations about this here. Thank you. Anastan (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per Jim here. Natuur12 (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Monaco overview.jpg

[edit]

Allegedly stolen from Facebook page without permission, ticket 2014012610007685 (OTRS) Grashoofd (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 23:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Shannon Brewing Company Logo.png

[edit]

Possible copyright problem; uploaded as "own work" but it's the logo of a different organisation. bobrayner (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tempted to use {{PD-textlogo}} for this one but I don't know if it can apply or not. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Seems like an US logo where the threashold is quite high. Natuur12 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ashoke Sen at Harvard.jpg

[edit]

possible non-free content, low resolution image with no EXIF Kmzayeem (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clavate capitate distinction.pdf.jpg

[edit]

Replaced by improved version. THis one is no longer wanted or referenced (afaik) JonRichfield (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted -FASTILY 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Louis Joseph Posner.jpg

[edit]

Probably copyvio. No exif and found all over the internet, e.g. at the LinkedIn profile of the subject. Jcb (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The uploader took extensive photos of VoterMarch, which Posner founded, including a number of other Posner photos. Every reason to believe that he took the photo the subject chose to use as his LinkedIn profile. By all means confirm by contacting the uploader if you wish.but there's no reason to start that confirmation with a DR. --SJ+ 08:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The photo is not on the subject's LinkEd ProfileTredgert (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a specific reason to come across this file: a complaint from the depicted person who claims that the upload would be copyvio. But if the uploader did take the picture, of course we can keep it. Jcb (talk) 15:33, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aha, thank you for the context. Is there similar concern from the subject about the other photos of him on Commons (all uploaded by @What88)? Hopefully the uploader can confirm. This portrait was also taken at a public rally (from the background), in line with the rest. --SJ+ 20:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This email to OTRS was only about this single file. It also contained a claim about supposed violation of his privacy. In my answer I have explained that his permission is not needed for a picture depicting him, taken in a public place. Jcb (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is the tip of a lengthening and often frustrating story over at Wikipedia, where - it appears - an editor who may or may not have been the subject began to edit several pages related to the subject, was blocked for legal threats when he could not assure the removal of certain unfavorable (and very well sourced) information, and then reappeared several times as a sock puppet to alternately puff up the pages or, failing that, demand their deletion. What88 was one of those socks. Some of this is laid out at w:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline. I'm not suggesting that the reviewers here became immersed in the history or details of these events, but rather, just to alert you all that things related to this fellow Posner are not always what they seem. JohnInDC (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment The real story about User:Lawline is that an Administrator was making edits to an article written by Lawline. The Administrator had no knowledge of the subject area but engaged in cyber bullying against Lawline to get her/his way. Lawline indicated that he disagreed with some of her edits. Lawline also advised the Administrator that some of his/her edits could be viewed as libelous under New York law. However, Lawline NEVER threatened to sue and always respected the rights of Wikipedia and the Administrator. The Administrator then turned things around and claimed that Lawline threatened to sue Wikipedia which was not the case. The Administrator did this as a ploy to block and ban Lawline so she/he could could get Lawline out of the way and edit the Article the way she/he wanted to. Following the banning of Lawline, every User that in any way was associated with or supportive of Lawline was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of Lawline. Included in the "sock puppet" list was User:LuckyDan89 who was a college student who had been a Wikipedia user for over 5 years, and who was banned for making one small edit on a Lawline article. While the majority of the Wikipedia volunteer editors and administrators are very noble, there exists a sizeable minority (including User:JohninDC) who engage in cyber bullying and other tactics which hurt the Wikipedia community.Tredgert (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • The subject seems non-notable, and may lose the article about him. I don't see any special reason to keep or delete this photo. Given the uploader's dishonest statements about their identity, they may not have had copyright in their uploads to begin with. --SJ+ 02:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment At this juncture, the subject Louis J. Posner has no objection to the Wikipedia Article about him being deleted, especially since editors and administrators who think they know better pruned a substantial amount of the coverage of Posner's work as an activist as co-founder and national chairman of VoterMarch and NoBloodforOil. However, the portrait picture is a separate issue and Posner does not want it in Wikipedia Commons.Tredgert (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • False legal statements by the complainer make me doubt more and more about the validity of the claim, complainer seems to take for granted that the uploader is the photographer, so I think  Keep, unless we have additional reasons to suspect copyvio. Jcb (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Your allegations of "false legal statements" is inappropriate. The commentary on the New York Statutes and case law on the "right of privacy" is based on verifiable citations, as well as the legal opinion of a competent New York attorney. Just because you are a Wikipedia Administrator from Europe does not mean that you know the law in the State of New York. Just because you have been a Wikipedia Editor for many years does not mean that you know more than a new User. In fact, the new user may be older than you, more experienced in his respective field, better educated than you, and more intelligent than you. Again, these comments are not meant in any way to diminish your substantial contribution as a Wikipedia volunteer.Tredgert (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have a useful checklist here, which is even quite understandable for unexperienced users. Jcb (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing me with the appropriate link which is very informative. However, please note that while the general rule is that no permission is required in public spaces in the United States, there are 50 states in the USA and in each one of them has different state laws. Apparently, as discussed, New York State has a specific law which requires in most cases that there be written permission in order to publish a picture of a person.Tredgert (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The request for removal of the image at louis_joseph_posner.jpg as not authorized by the subject, a copyright violation, and as a violation of privacy (N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §§ 50-51).
The file was uploaded by User:What88 who was blocked and banned as a "sock puppet" of another banned and blocked User:Lawline.
I believe that under Wikipedia policy, [WP:G5], as Creations of banned or Blocked Users, that would constitute further grounds for deletion of this file.
This portrait photograph of a living person is a violation of the right to privacy. New York State has a special statute which provides that a published picture of a living person can be a violation of that person's right of privacy, unless the person gives written approval of the use of the photograph or image. Louis J. Posner is a New York State resident and does not give written approval of the photograph.
The taking of a picture in a public space is not an invasion of privacy. However, under New York law, the posting of a portrait of a living person on a public website is an invasion of privacy.
There is no requirement that the New York Statute on "invasion of privacy" be for commercial purposes. Please be further advised that this is not just a Regulation, but New York State law.
"A person, firm or corporation that uses for advertising purposes, or for the purposes of trade, the name, portrait or picture of any living person without having first obtained the written consent of such person, or if a minor of his or her parent or guardian, is guilty of a misdemeanor." - See more at: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/nycode/CVR/5/50#sthash.ZCcDNqSE.dpuf
The New York Statute, N.Y. CVR. LAW § 50 : NY Code - Section 50: Right of privacy, applies to all corporations, including not-for-profit corporations. An online encyclopedia is considered "trade" as it is offered to the public. The fact that the business operations are funded by contributions, rather than advertising, makes no difference.
N.Y. CVR. LAW § 50 : NY Code - Section 50: Right of privacy. Please note further that the New York Right of Privacy applies to websites (Geary v. Town Sports Intern. Holding, Inc., 21 Misc.3d 512, 870 N.Y.S.2d 846, 37 Media L. Rep. 1063, 2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 28339 (Sup. Ct., NY Co. 2008) , as well as not-for-profit corporations (Shamir v. Anchor-International Foundation, Inc., Slip Copy, 2013 WL 4008635 (U.S. Dist Ct., SDNY 2013)).
Has User:What88 responded and provided proof that he/she has written permission from Louis J. Posner to post this portrait picture on Wikimedia Commons? If not, there is an obligation to remove the portrait picture.Tredgert (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tredgert, you and User:What88 are both confirmed socks of the same user on enwiki (see en:User:What88 and en:User:Tredgert). Please don't portray yourself as a different user from What88 in this discussion, that is misleading. This is also not the venue to complain about events on Wikipedia. January (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not denying that I am not a different user than What88 (as discussed below). My complaints about Wikipedia English were in response to accusations against me by user @johninDC. I have the right to defend myself.Tredgert (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Strong evidence of bad faith in the requested takedown. Lawline et al. have been attempting to whitewash the Posner suite of articles over at enwiki since early 2011. Having encountered sufficient resistance from clueful editors there, Lawline begun engaging in a sort of search term whitewashing as well. This is just another example of the same behavior. Thus, we just look at the license: It is not unilaterally revocable, and the image therefore should be kept. That said, Tredgert does raise a point about personality/privacy/publicity rights. As such, I have tagged the image with Template:Personality rights. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to  Delete per Эlcobbola: earlier publication = OTRS needed. This strikes me as a negative outcome because I don't consider the Lawline group's claim not to have had authorization to publish credible, but there's no reason for this case to be an exception. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:53, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mendaliv has been engaged in a vindinctive and malicious campaign against any article that Lawline was involved in, mercilessly deleting information, requesting that good Wilipedia articles be deleted, and using trashy tabloid articles to smear the reputation of Louis J. Posner. His conduct has been deplorable and Editors like him give Wikipedia a bad name and discourage new users. Based on his virulent conduct, I am now beginning to suspect that @Mendaliv and his sidekick @JohninDC may be political operatives. It is no secret that various political operatives have infiltrated various organizations and that a group like Wikipedia with anonymous editors is particularly vulnerable. The subject Louis J. Posner is a political activist who has worked closely with other controversial progressive activists including Greg Palast, Vincent Bugliosi and Zack Exley; and Posner is the type of individual who would be targeted by such political operatives with a hidden agenda.
As far as the license is concerned, we have an obligation to verify the license and we have not heard from What88. In the case of a portrait of a living person, we need to exercise greater restraint and caution, and if in doubt we should delete.Tredgert (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stop pretending that you are not What88, or you'll get blocked. Jcb (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not denying that my former UserName was What88. Unfortunately, What88 was blocked by Wikipedia English and I thought that the block also related to Wikimedia Commons. I have never received authorization from Louis J. Posner to upload this portrait picture. I did not take the picture myself in a public setting. I believe I got the picture from a website which was copyright protected. I thought there would be no harm in that. I have since been contacted by Louis J. Posner who has stated that the picture is unauthorized and he requests that it be deleted from Wikipedia Commons. Tredgert (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't know or, frankly, care about the dispute at en.wiki or the motives/wishes of a user who is/was clearly misbehaving. This image, however, appeared here on 28 February 2013, approximately one month before its upload to the Commons on 23 March 2013. COM:OTRS requires a ticket in these circumstances. All the comments above about the uploader and his/her other accounts only support the notion that the licensing ought not to be considered reliable. Эlcobbola talk 19:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Strange story. Either way, com:OTRS confirmation is required since the file was uploaded elswhere before it is uploaded to commons. And than there is the lack of EXIF data and if you read the conversation you see that he admits that he uploaded it without permission. Natuur12 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armoiries Saxe.png

[edit]

This image is wrong: it is "barry of twelve or and sable" where as the correct coat of arms of Saxony is "barry of ten sable and or" (i.e. ). Moreover, this picture is not used anymore. --BrightRaven (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is wrong, changing the description would be enough. The image is mentioned (and, I guess, used) in File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png. Erik Warmelink (talk) 12:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we could change the description, but I don't see why it would make sense to keep this image: this coat of arms simply does not exist. It's quite like keeping a map with a spelling error on it. This image is also wrong, but it seems there is not right version at the moment. I don't think File:Armoiries Saxe.png was used to create File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png, since it's a PNG file. Even if it was, the design of these coats of arms are in the public domain, so I don't think there's a copyright problem about it. BrightRaven (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the image is used. "this image is wrong" is not a valid reason to remove an image. Since File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png mentions this image, labeling this image as erroneous will even help people who want to improve HosdlmdS, because it enables them to see why the error was introduced in that image. Erik Warmelink (talk) 20:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Demonstrated utility, so in scope. Please edit the image description to indicate the matter. Dereckson (talk) 10:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armoiries Saxe.png

[edit]

see above, replaced by a correct file now Antemister (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 weak keep - Same problem as above, the image is still in use - File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept I'm keeping this for the reasons given above, we do not generally delete "wrong" images. Also, I am by no means at all an expert on heraldry, but I note that the blazon at http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org, the source for this image, is

"Burelé de sable et d'or, au crancelin de sinople, brochant en bande sur le tout"

Unless I am mistaken this does not call for either ten or twelve. With that said, I also note that the CoA shown there is ten, not twelve. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Armoiries Saxe.png

[edit]

The reasons for keeping this files are incorrect imho.

  1. The fact that the file is used in File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png should not be a reason for keeping this file: File:Map of SEATO member countries.png was deleted even if it is used in File:Map of SEATO member countries - de.svg (see also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2013-12).
  2. Jameslwoodward seems to have missed an important point when he closed the previous DR: the main problem is not the number of lines, but the colours. In the correct coat of arms of Saxonny, the first line is black ("barry of ten sable and or") whereas in this file the first line is yellow ("barry of twelve or and sable"). Moreover, it seems that "burelé" without any further precision means "ten lines": see [10]. On [11] (where the blazon given by Jameslwoodward is given), the coat of arms of Saxonny has 10 lines not more. Consequently, this file is clearly wrong and cannot have any potential educational purpose.
  3. Jameslwoodward also said that we do not generally delete "wrong" images. However File:Map of SEATO member countries.png was deleted even if it is not clearly demonstrated that it is wrong (some users just consider it as misleading). (The same Jameslwoodward opposed the process of undeletion of this file because it was misleading.) BrightRaven (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionnally, it seems that File:Héraldique origine saxonne de la maison de Savoie.png was deleted in the meantime. BrightRaven (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, the file is not used anymore. Contrary to James, I think, that Commons must generally not keep wrong images. Old, historical, outdated images – yes, but not wrong ones. Taivo (talk) 16:57, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MacOs_Syserror.png

[edit]

Marked as non-free on English Wikipedia. Appears to be ineligible for copyright to me. -Nard the Bard 03:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for ineligibility --DieBuche (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Ineligible. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MacOs Syserror.png

[edit]

This file may appear to be in the public domain, but the complexity of the bomb icon and the complexity of the dialog itself suggest that it is fair use. 179.210.86.1 05:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Ineligible. INeverCry 20:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dit Clapper.jpg

[edit]

Clapper played his first season with the Bruins in 1926 so basically the first publication couldn't occured prior to 1923 TaraO (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed there. However, the Turofsky brothers were Toronto-based, and that is almost certainly where this picture was first taken and published. It will be PD in Canada, and as a pre-1946 image, the almost certainly the same in the US. Of course, I only say "almost certainly". Logically this image should be PD, but that may not be enough for this debate. Resolute (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 20:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ISS-32 American EVA b3 Aki Hoshide.jpg

[edit]

I find it doubtful that a picture taken by a Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency employee (Aki Hoshide) could have been solely created by NASA—or, in other words, taken as part of that person's duties within NASA. In my understanding, it is much more likely that the picture was taken as part of Aki Hoshide's duties for the JAEA and would therefore constitute JAEA's property and would be copyrighted by that agency. odder (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep When this should be true shoal of images would be deleted. Many pictures here were taken by Russian cosmonauts and European astronauts. Are these images unfree? Often NASA don't say who took the photo. Due to Com:PCP we may not upload images taken on the ISS, it could taken from non NASA personal. Till now it was common accord that all pictures from ISS are NASA material and free. --Ras67 (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete The nomination hits the nail on the head. russavia (talk) 10:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment No, it does not. I think we have a new form of Copyright paranoia. Why do you not initiate a mass deletion? A great amount of NASA pictures are not taken by NASA personnel. For instance this image was photographed by ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano and is free as work of the Image Science & Analysis Laboratory, of the NASA Johnson Space Center. Has NASA stolen ESA's copyright? What is with this file? We don't know, who programmed the camera. It could be alleged copyrighted by ESA, JAXA or Roscosmos. Due to Com:PCP we have to delete it? This screen capture is singularly interesting. The video was taken by a US (NASA) helmet cam, worn by a Russian cosmonaut. Belongs the alleged copyright to the cosmonaut or the video equipment owner or the person who push the button to activate the cam? --Ras67 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep NASA explicitly indicates in the gallery guideline on that web site that "NASA material is not protected by copyright unless noted." It means that the image in the subject of this discussion does not have copyright protection because there is no note (see the description which does not have any note). Therefore, it is believed to be free of copyright owner. Unless NASA stole the image from the copyright owner and put it on their own photo gallery on that site which I don't think it happens here. Z22 (talk) 07:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete JAXA (Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency ; btw, it's not "JAEA") claims their copyright on this work at their website. [12] They allow press use and educational use, but forbid commercial use. whym (talk) 04:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They allow press use ... but forbid commercial use." - That's an interesting stand to take, considering the press is pretty commercial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentJAXA's copyright claim is erroneous. They took the photo from NASA's website (it is bit equal) and gave it the same licence like all other ones. Nobody on JAXA has an interest to clarify the real rights. What for, unfortunately nobody unless Wikipedia is interested in licences. In this special case Aki Hoshide took this photo as commissioned worker for NASA not for JAXA. All operations (also the photography timeslot) during this EVA were planned and supervised by NASA. Only Hoshide as JAXA member conditioned not a Japan copyright of all photos, which he shot. Should this assessment be incorrect, we would have a huge problem with many pictures from Space Shuttle and ISS flights with international participation. --Ras67 (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete per Whym. Even NASA makes mistakes and, to be honest, my personal impression is that they sometimes tend to be a bit sloppy when it comes to copyright (see e. g. the SOHO DR). I don't think it's a good idea to blindly follow their "unless noted" when there's significant evidence that a file is actually not from NASA. --El Grafo (talk) 10:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentIt is clear that JAXA acknowledges in that description page that Hoshide worked on that mission as an astronaut in capacity of the United States as it said, "米国の船外活動" which mean the "spacewalk of the United State". They even indicate that the EVA mission was the US one by referencing to the code US EVA 19, not JAXA's EVA mission. Also noted that in this picture, JAXA reference to the ライブラリ (library) iss032e025258 which is the NASA's ISS Photo ID: ISS032-E-025258 where they took the image from. Z22 (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Based on the comments of Ras67 and Z22, and my own readings, I'm reasonably certain that Jaxa is falsely claiming copyright on an image they have no rights to (i.e. copyfraud). As Hoshide was in the service of NASA at the time, and as first publication was on NASA's website, this is clearly a NASA-produced work (and as such public domain). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment As far as I understand it, the basic requirement for images like this to be in the PD is that the author must be an employee of the US government. But the mere participation at a NASA-mission doesn't automatically make him a NASA employee, does it? That's a group of scientists from different agencies up there and while they of course help each other out on their individual tasks, they are all being paid by their own agencies – and that's what matters here, imho. All in all, it appears to me that the copyright status of this work is not entirely clear, and unless we manage to get definite, official and non-conflicting statements from both agencies, we can never be sure – which unfortunately would mean we'd have to delete it per Com:PCP. --El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment If you want to be strict about which entity provides the correct copyright claim between NASA's Human Space Flight Gallery (which claims public domain) and JAXA Digital Archive (which claims joint copyright status with license for media and educational use, etc.) you got to see which entity makes obvious erroneous claims. JAXA is in the wrong here. For example, is this taken by NASA photographer or JAXA photographer? If you based the copyright on employment, then would the photographer an employee of both JAXA and NASA? Well, you may say it is a joint mission. Then what about this? Would it consider the joint mission here? Why only NASA now? Also take a note of the sloppiness of JAXA to say that NASA claims copyright where it obviously cannot. Also JAXA restricts the use of educational only for a public domain image where it has no right to restrict. This is a sign that whoever manages the JAXA Digital Archive does not put any thought to the "copyright" and "applicable range". As for NASA's Human Space Flight Gallery, I don't see any incident in that gallery to be obviously wrong in the copyright declaration. Don't use SOHO as the examples because those might be from other NASA sites, but not from the Human Space Flight Gallery which has specific curator. Z22 (talk) 14:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment As per the policy of JAXA shown below, it is the definitive answer that this image is owned by NASA:
"Amongst images used on JAXA's web site, ones related to an astronaut's on-orbit activities and training at NASA, launches of the Space Shuttle and others related to the Space Shuttle or International Space Station are owned by NASA. Please use these images owned by NASA according to the following guidelines from NASA."
JAXA must have had an agreement with NASA on this. So I think this resolves any confusion regarding the ownership of this image. Z22 (talk) 20:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's as clear as it gets. Good work and thanks for being persistent.  Keep now. --El Grafo (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Z22: Thank you for letting us know about this, it's welcome new information that they acknowledge that the NASA images simultaneously published on the JAXA web site are as free as those hosted by NASA. However, I'm still not sure about those images tagged as "Credit: NASA/JAXA", which include the nominated file. As "Conditions for material usage" on the JAXA web site state: "When the material is credited as a common copy-righted material between another organization and JAXA, please indicate both sources. (Ex.: (C) JAXA/NAOJ)" It seems to imply that those "NASA/JAXA" images are co-owned by NASA and JAXA. Their wording of "common copy-righted material" ("共有著作物" in their Japanese version, too) sounds a bit unclear, though. whym (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, my hesitation is a slight one, and not big enough for me to keep my "delete" vote anymore. I won't object to closing this as keep. (but not confident enough to cast a "keep")whym (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep It was found on the NASA website. No copyright information was given, therefore P.D. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Banknotes of Palestina

[edit]

Does anybody have a clue of the copyright situation of palestinian banknotes? CC or GFDL doesn't make sense to me for these files.

Jcb (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it necessary to nominate all these for deletion just to get an answer to your question? This is just causing other people work. Some of them have a UK PD licence and as Palestine was a British mandate at the time these notes were issued that seems like the correct licence to me. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it was the right thing to do, because banknotes are often copyrighted and we have to assume they are if we don't have evidence to the contrary. If the outcome of this discussion is that the UK license is correct for these files, the files can be kept and tagged with that license. I think you may be right about the license, but I don't know sufficient about the governmental situation of that time at that place to be sure. Jcb (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep. All are bills from the Palestine Mandate. Per Phila, the last image has the right license & it should be applied to the others. --SJ+ 20:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per above. License changed to {{PD-UKGov}}. Yann (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Wappen Frankfurt am Main nach Klemens Stadler.svg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by User:David Liuzzo as no source, reasoning : Die Blasonierung ist eine andere Quellenangabe als jene für die bildliche Ausführung. JuTa 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ausgerechnet David Liuzzo, der mal einfach Grafiken überkopiert, sich als alleinigen Urheber einschreibt und keine Verweise einträgt auf vorige Versionen und Autoren, fühlt sich jetzt (zurecht) persönlich angegriffen. Na Hallo. Er behauptet, es gibt keine Quelle. Seht doch mal in die Bildbeschreibung. Ich habe jeden Vektor manuell gesetzt. Ich bin der Urheber dieser Datei und das ist eineindeutig erkennbar. Demnächst vorm Löschen bitte bescheid geben. N3MO (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Im übrigen ist die Blasonierung sogar in der Bildbeschreibung eingetragen: Das Stadtwappen zeigt den silbernen, aufgerichteten, goldgekrönten und goldbewehrten Adler mit gespreizten Flügeln und Fängen, mit blauer Zunge und blauen Krallen auf dem roten Feld. Wer lesen kann ist im Vorteil. N3MO (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ich fühle mich in keiner Weise persönlich angegriffen. Du jedoch schon, weil ich es einmal gewagt hatte eine gänzlich falsche und quellenlose Abbildung direkt zu ersetzen und mich seither mit einer Fehde überziehst. (Eine Quelle hattest Du dafür übrigens bis heute nicht erbracht.). Und auch diese Abbildung hat keine Quelle. Eine Blasonierung ist nicht automatisch eine Quelle, wenn es um Schöpfungshöhen geht. Das Wappen Stadlers entspricht zwar der Blasonierung, das bestreitet auch niemand, aber nicht der von der Stadt verwendeten Form, insofern hat es eine eigene Schöpfungshöhe. Und daher ist eine Quelle für die Grafik anzugeben, (zumal Stadler erst 1975 verstarb und an sich daher keine Gemeinfreiheit vorliegt, wie bei anderen Autoren bspw. Ströhl). Und wenn Du jeden Vector beim Coca-Cola-Logo setzt, bist Du dennoch nicht dessen Urheber. Wer denken kann ist klar im Vorteil. --David Liuzzo (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Appears to have a source. Fry1989 eh? 22:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: INeverCry 21:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Adidas Europass

[edit]

Whilst the balls are utilitarian objects, the designs on the ball are copyrightable, and these files should be deleted as being derivatives of copyrightable works.

russavia (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Das Urheberrecht oder der Musterschutz beziehen sich doch auf dreidimensionale Werke. Wenn ich also einen Ball in 3D produziere und in Umlauf bringe, verstoße ich damit gegen das Urheberrecht. Aber doch nicht wenn ich mir von einer Urheberrechtlich Geschützen Ware ein Bild anschaue! Was ist das den für eine Rechtsauffassung? Ich verstehe es so langsam wirklich nicht mehr. Gruß kandschwar (talk) 20:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Adidas Tango 12

[edit]

Whilst the balls are utilitarian objects, the designs on the ball are copyrightable, and these files should be deleted as being derivatives of copyrightable works.

russavia (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 21:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo Najwyższej Izby Kontroli.svg

[edit]

The Supreme Audit Office claims that this logo does not constitute an official sign or symbol and therefore cannot be considered to be in the public domain (or, according to Polish law, not to be subject to copyright law). Read more in Polish. odder (talk) 08:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, it claims that the logo does constitute an official sign, but also, according to the first answers of SAO webmaster, the logo happens to be a work (thus not to be in Polish PD). I'll ask SAO for an official statement, because according to our law the logo simply has to be in our PD. Meanwhile, it can be deleted, because 1. this uncertain situation can last some time and 2. it's possible that I'll upload another version. Tar Lócesilion|queta! 12:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Nonsense, if it's an official logo of a Polish government office, it fits the bill. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Matches tag, apparently. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: apparently ok FASTILY 09:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Adidas Teamgeist

[edit]

Whilst the balls are utilitarian objects, the designs on the ball are copyrightable, and these files should be deleted as being derivatives of copyrightable works.

russavia (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, Inc. apply in this case as well? Meaning: The logos etc. on the balls are protected, but the balls themselves as "underlying works", being "everyday, functional, noncopyrightable objects", are not, and as long as the photograph is of the whole ball and not of the logo only, that photograph is not a derivative of the protected logo. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Whisky bottles. So I say  Keep. --Rosenzweig τ 13:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I don't agree that the Skyy Spirits case is a good case, the logos and designs on these balls are more than DM and need to have fair use rationales for use, that means they need to be on projects that alow for Fair use and not here. LGA talkedits 10:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The Ets-Hokin decision was not about de minimis. Even if the designs etc. on the ball themselves are copyrightable, it does not matter as long as the photo is of the entire ball, which in itself is not copyrightable. --Rosenzweig τ 11:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Is the geometrical form pictured on the ball original again to gain legal protection? If yes the pictures should be deleted. If not, there's no reason to delete. Before opening such DRs one should be sure with no doubt that design are beyond the threshold of originality. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 12:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adidas is a German company, don't know where the balls are produced. But US law is relevant for Commons per the Copyright rules. --Rosenzweig τ 19:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course but also the law of the country where the pictures are taken and maybe where the company is located and where the balls are produced. Natuur12 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That'd most likely be Germany, and I don't think those balls would be protected by copyright (trademarks are a different matter of course) under German law. To be certain, you'd need a court decision. --Rosenzweig τ 21:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The only copyrightable part I see on most balls is the logo with the smiling faces, which is depicted so small and totally not prominent, that de minimis applies. Jcb (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/01/03&oldid=116121220"