Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/02/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Image is a screenshot from the computer game en:World of Tanks with a custom model skin; no part of this image is under a free license. The uploader's claim of it being his "own work" is an outright falsification. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Image contains text which reads "Army Recognition (C)". Uploader's claim that the file is his "own work" is an outright lie. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
A google reverse image search provides many hits, including this, this, this and this. File is a copyvio, and the uploader's claim that the image is his "own work" is highly dubious. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio, see this Google reverse image search. Uploader's claim of "own work" is highly dubious. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No source information provided by the uploader. Uploader's claim of the file being his "own work" is highly dubious, refer to this Google reverse image search. Image is likely scanned from a book. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No source information provided by uploader. Uploader's claim that the file is his "own work" is highly dubious, refer to this Google reverse image search. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No source information provided by uploader. Uploader's claims that the file is his "own work" is highly dubious, refer to this Google reverse image search. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
No source information provided by the uploader. Uploader's claims that the file is his "own work" is highly dubious, refer to this Google reverse image search. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio, uploader's claim of "own work" is dubious. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio, refer to this Google reverse image search. No evidence of copyright permission provided by uploader. Uploader claims that the image is his "own work", which is dubious. -- 李博杰 —Talk contribs 04:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio:http://www.saintremyenrollat.com/spip.php?article45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssire (talk • contribs) 2014-02-10T14:42:31 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy for copyvio. Pleclown (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
André Lhote is dead in 1962. No freedom of panorama in France. 109.216.49.109 00:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This penis is underexposed. And good penis images may be found in this category. Kulmalukko (talk) 00:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nominator that the photo of this penis is underexposed, the penis itself - however - is quite exposed. We have much better pictures of human male sexual organs. Vote delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
i highly doubt copyleft http://www.siamdara.com/DaraVariety.asp?did=5033 © Copyright 2009 All Rights Reserved - @ Siamdara.com Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/3649 Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
self-promotion Fixertool (talk) 01:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment SPU. A lot of puppets blocked on Spanish Wikipedia: [1], [2], [3] [4], [5]
Please, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Raúl Allain.jpg. --Fixertool (talk) 01:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like uploader and author are not the same person Macucal (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like uploader and author are not the same person Macucal (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like uploader and author are not the same person Macucal (talk) 01:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks like uploader and author are not the same person Macucal (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
horrifically blurry; there are scores of acceptable photos of this car available. Another Bull-doser classic mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this one fails COM:SCOPE for quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A copyrighted derivative screen image dominates this photo. Leoboudv (talk) 02:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FOP? On the picture we see metal & plastic construction with the electronic clock on it. It's not a building, not a monument, not a something which concerns to COM:FOP.
Keep, of course. Also I think it's a protest nomination, because the file uses in Russian Wikipedia. --Brateevsky (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is an artistic piece. There are clearly artistic elements in this clock (the arrangement of shapes, the patterning on part of it). Photographic reproductions of art and architecture are subject to the copyright of the work itself, and Russian law forbids photographic reproductions "where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes." ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FOP? On the picture we see metal & plastic construction with the electronic clock on it. It's not a building, not a monument, not a something which concerns to COM:FOP. Keep, of course. Also I think it's a protest nomination, because the file uses in Russian Wikipedia. --Brateevsky (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is an artistic piece. There are clearly artistic elements in this clock (the arrangement of shapes, the patterning on part of it). Photographic reproductions of art and architecture are subject to the copyright of the work itself, and Russian law forbids photographic reproductions "where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes." ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FOP? On the picture we see metal & plastic construction with the electronic clock on it. It's not a building, not a monument, not a something which concerns to COM:FOP. Keep, of course. Also I think it's a protest nomination, because the file uses in Russian Wikipedia. --Brateevsky (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is an artistic piece. There are clearly artistic elements in this clock (the arrangement of shapes, the patterning on part of it). Photographic reproductions of art and architecture are subject to the copyright of the work itself, and Russian law forbids photographic reproductions "where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes." ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FOP? On the picture we see metal & plastic construction with the electronic clock on it. It's not a building, not a monument, not a something which concerns to COM:FOP. Keep, of course. Also I think it's a protest nomination, because the file uses in Russian Wikipedia. --Brateevsky (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
- No, it is an artistic piece. There are clearly artistic elements in this clock (the arrangement of shapes, the patterning on part of it). Photographic reproductions of art and architecture are subject to the copyright of the work itself, and Russian law forbids photographic reproductions "where portrayal of the work by such method is the basic object of that reproduction, broadcasting to the air or via cable or where portrayal of the work is used in commercial purposes." ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP in Russia. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 2D banner ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Not in public domain in the US as it was published after 1946. Underlying lk (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't matter. This is Fair use. 1/Because in United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders (see Lenz v. Universal Music Corp) 2/ Because these photos are published in South Africa (sometimes by the SA Government) and are now considered to be in the public domain (Copyright Act of 1978, amended 2002). 3/ Because laws of the USA do not apply in SA, Russia, Europe or anywhere else in the world outside the United States. TVL (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Fair use is not allowed on Commons. ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright is restored by the com:URAA and com:FAIR USE is not allowed. Natuur12 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Possible COM:COPYVIO as it is also found [6] here with the same watermark. (Fifth image from bottom of slideshow slightly cropped). Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, mysteriously watermarked and photoshopped, uploaded by 1-upload-user Godoyezequiel (talk · contributions · Statistics) Gunnex (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Argentine work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1977, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US till the end of 2072 (+95 years). es:Selva Alemán (1944—) living. Gunnex (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This picture was copied from [7]. Pnapora (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Cropped from (example) http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/4133434/600full-laura-ferreti.jpg / http://basedefotos.com/files/images/2011/11/fotos-de-laura-ferretti-7.jpg. Most likely copyvio as also File:Ferretti.jpg, uploaded by same user on same day. Gunnex (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This scan of an unsourced document is likely violating the copyright of its author, as IMO the text has enough creativity to be above threshold of originality (Schöpfungshöhe) and thereby is copyrightable. The uploader himself had some doubts and wasn't careless about that, but asked for comment[8]. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader himself -- Cherubino (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Very small, unused image without a description. Robert Weemeyer (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Additionally it's watermarked and thus not only out of COM:SCOPE but a possible COM:COPYVIO as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Lucas Araujo en una gondola en Venecia despues de publicar su primer libro- 2014-02-09 18-43.jpeg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, appears to be an unsourced video screenshot. Gunnex (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image is of too poor quality to use and thus fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Репер Tom Fraier--Родился в России в Тверской области--Начал деятельность репера с 12 лет--Первый трек его назывался "Жиз 2014-02-09 16-42.jpg
[edit]private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 09:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Most likely Flickr washing and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded on Flickr by a 1-upload-Flickr-user on 29.06.2013 and on same day (minutes later) uploaded by Clarialonsoweb (talk · contributions · Statistics) here. Considering User talk:Clarialonsoweb and logs, the repeated try to upload a most likely copyrighted image. Gunnex (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's photograph by Viktoria Lomasko, all images on photograph by Viktoria Lomasko too. Victoria Lomasko chosen license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike for photograph and images from photograph. — Reefr (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that.
I withdraw my nomination. BrightRaven (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that.
Derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's photograph by Viktoria Lomasko, all images on photograph by Viktoria Lomasko too. Victoria Lomasko chosen license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike for photograph and images from photograph. — Reefr (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that. I withdraw my nomination. BrightRaven (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that.
Argentine work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1976, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US till the end of 2071 (+95 years). Gunnex (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's photograph by Viktoria Lomasko, all images on photograph by Viktoria Lomasko too. Victoria Lomasko chosen license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike for photograph and images from photograph. — Reefr (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that. I withdraw my nomination. BrightRaven (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that.
Argentine work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1972, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US till the end of 2067 (+95 years). Gunnex (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Picture copied from the internet (eBay). Pictures of 3D-objects like a book are not covered by {{PD-art}}. Moreover, there is no indication that the book cover is in the PD. We would need to know the date of death of the illustrator. The date of death of the writer is not relevant here. BrightRaven (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of copyrighted material. BrightRaven (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- It's photograph by Viktoria Lomasko, all images on photograph by Viktoria Lomasko too. Victoria Lomasko chosen license Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike for photograph and images from photograph. — Reefr (talk) 12:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that. I withdraw my nomination. BrightRaven (talk) 13:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I had not noticed that.
Building by Émile Dubuisson (d. 1947). No FoP in France. BrightRaven (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a derivative work of a photograph with an unknown publishing date. Angry Red Panda (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of project's scope. Sealle (talk) 10:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Looks very like an advert, out of scope IMO Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image fails COM:SCOPE because of its promotional, self-promotional and/or advertising nature. Additionally it may be a COM:COPYVIO depending on the source of the image. User upload name implies business connection. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Jimont11 + logs (3 active uploads = 1x no permission (work of Francisco Cordoba), 1x copyvio grabbed from newspaper), repetitive trying to upload a most likely copyrighted image of en:Soledad Fandiño. Gunnex (talk) 10:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; used for en:Gardasil advertisement in ru:Гардасил as a "proof of official use" which has many normal sources for proof. -- Akim Dubrow (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.66.152.124 11:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work /St1995 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
out of scope, self-promotion /St1995 11:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This medal was created for the 200th birthday (200 rocznica urodzin), in 2008. It is, therefore, clearly still under copyright and this image infringes on that copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
a portrait of the uploader? (unused) 91.66.152.124 11:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
As much as I understand, the uploader is himself depicted. This is not a selfie. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed.
Google traduction. Autant je comprends, le téléchargeur est lui-même représenté. Cela ne veut pas un selfie. OTRS-permission du photographe est nécessaire. Taivo (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Argentine work, video frame of 1956 Argentine film es:La pícara soñadora (película de 1956) failing {{PD-AR-Movie}} ("At least 50 years have passed after the death of the script writer, producer and director of this movie") as director es:Ernesto Arancibia died in 1963 and writer es:Abel Santa Cruz died in 1995. Procuced by "Eduardo Bedoya" with unknown status. Not In PD in Argentina & elsewhere and copyrighted in Argentina at least till the end of 2045 (1995 +50 years, considering death year of writer). Gunnex (talk) 12:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 13:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Built in the 1990s, FOP-Germany does not apply for interiors. A.Savin 13:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
It says that the website is unavailable because it is being redesigned. It is therefore not possible to tell whether the image comes from the website or whether it is freely licensed as claimed. As the site is being redesigned, it may also mean that the image no longer will be hosted on the website even if it previously were. Unverifiable licence claim. Stefan4 (talk) 13:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This is apparently a photograph of the Flickr user, and the Flickr user identifies another photographer, so the Flickr user is unlikely allowed to license this magazine cover. Stefan4 (talk) 13:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The source says "Leo Pröstler auf dem Titelbild des Waschbär-Katalogs 1992, Foto: Fotostudio Podleska GmbH" --Leoboudv (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work, small size, no EXIF, DMCA notice on Google. Yann (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
uploader is not the author, source is down 91.66.152.124 14:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
What does "google" mean? Is this a free file? 91.66.152.124 14:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
no permission 91.66.152.124 14:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (defunct website). BrightRaven (talk) 14:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion (blog) BrightRaven (talk) 14:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: advertising or self-promotion (only used on the user page of a contributor of Spanish Wikipedia with no useful contribution). BrightRaven (talk) 15:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work, very small, no EXIF. Yann (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, as the copyright holder of this photo[9] is INTER on PolonSIL.ru.[10] It is not available on Wikimedia Commons. --Akira Kouchiyama
14:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
![61 File:Репер Tom Fraier--Родился в России в Тверской области--Начал деятельность репера с 12 лет--Первый трек его назывался "Жиз 2014-02-09 16-42.jpg](#File:Репер_Tom_Fraier--Родился_в_России_в_Тверской_области--Начал_деятельность_репера_с_12_лет--Первый_трек_его_назывался_"Жиз_2014-02-09_16-42.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: advertising or self-promotion for a defunct website. Only used on the user page of a contributor without useful contribution. BrightRaven (talk) 15:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. Same for Category:Christian Ferreira da Costa Eriksson. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of the poster. Yann (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No source for the picture of the statue, several smaller copies on the web. Yann (talk) 15:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. Out of project scope. Part of the "Anirban Sen Gupta" cross-wiki spam. Jni (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Source says © ARTEMAGAZINE. Yann (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Barillot is born in 1949. Copyright violation. 109.216.92.180 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Barillot is born in 1949. Copyright violation. 109.216.92.180 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Bernard Barillot is born in 1949. Copyright violation. 109.216.92.180 16:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
'No source' tag was removed by uploader. Where does the used base map come from? Jcb (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Lymantria (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Lymantria (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Lymantria (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Lymantria (talk) 17:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Photo by Mike Ridewood/Canadian Olympic Committee according to EXIF metadata. Uncertain copyright status. Jespinos (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Apparently, a not-de-minimis image on a t-shirt. Jespinos (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
File:Lady Bee Honey -Best 100% natural honey created in 2009 for M&G Expresso,Inc the biggest importer of honey in South Florida , distinctive for a nice and natural flavor , is today the best honey bee ever produc 2014-02-09 08-25.jpg
[edit]
Per COM:PACKAGING. Jespinos (talk) 18:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Jespinos (talk) 18:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Podgorica, Montenegro Leoboudv (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Podgorica, Montenegro Leoboudv (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Does not respect PD-Text/Logo. Aga (d) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Does not respect PD-Text/Logo. Aga (d) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Blurry, wordmarked, out of scope. Fry1989 eh? 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The work is in artist's copyright (Carl Oskar Borg died in 1947). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The work is in artist' copyright (Carl Oscar Borg died in 1947). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyrighted Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
his file is no longer need by VibrantSharer to be on wikipedia, I wanted it deleted to avoid storing unwanted file in wikipedia storage server — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.186.23.238 (talk • contribs) 2014-02-10T04:03:11 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused logo Natuur12 (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence the file is not in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- All photos in Category:Svenskt Porträttgalleri XX, published in 1901 are PD --I99pema (talk) 20:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should be mentiooned in the file. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it is by the choice of licence. Can the detetion request now be removed? --I99pema (talk) 08:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should be mentiooned in the file. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Seems solved Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The image is in artist's copyright (Gustaf Fjæstad died in 1948) Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The image is in artist's copyright (Gustaf Fjæstad dies in 1948). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The image is in artist's copyright (Gustaf Fjæstad dies in 1948). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence the image is not in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- This is a photo by Anton Blomberg who died in 1936. source.--I99pema (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Should be mentioned in the file. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Seems solved Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence the photo is not in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Painting is still in artist's copyright (Isaac Grünewald died in 1946). Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Après l'autodafé de photos du mémorial, celle ci est sans objet - Uploader request : --Daniel Villafruela (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No evidence the photo is not in copyright. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 20:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, mistake, thought that the picture was from the 1940's.--Holger.Ellgaard (talk) 08:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Argentine work, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated) 1973, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US till the end of 2068 (+95 years). Gunnex (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unusable personal artistic photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be a TV screenshot. Aga (d) 20:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Personal vacation photo. Not in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:52, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. The uploader added a {{PD-US-1978-89}} later. But the source page http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?artist=Peggi+Blu states All images are copyrighted by their respective copyright owners. JuTa 20:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Ulclear copyrightstatus Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Probable flickrwashing. Many photos on this flickr account are from the account owner, but many photos are non-free images copied from other places. This photo was posted to this flickr account in 2013 without EXIF metadata, but was already on the internet since at least 2012, for example there (where it is attributed to an individual person who is not a US-gov employee). A photo of the same person is available on a free-licensed site there. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. The uploader added a {{PD-user}} afterwards, which is likly not the case, because this image is not self created. The source page states the image is in the public domain, but does not state wh or who is the author. JuTa 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I uploaded this picture because there is no picture of this person available on Wiki Commons. The picture that is there, is not available for the dutch wiki. The website has posted this picture indicates that it is Public Domain.--Maddriver371 (talk) 18:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No evicence that this file is in the public domain Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Libel, under U.S. state law, especially as a per se libel (per se meaning that it's not necessary to prove that the factual claim is damaging because it's presumed to be). The person is apparently recognizable and is described as a prostitute, and prostitution is illegal conduct, so, if the description is false, she is likely being libeled. While prostitution may be lawful in Germany, it's not in most of the U.S., and Wikimedia servers are in Florida, so she may be able to sue there. If she was not allowed to be in prostitution due to age or other circumstances (e.g., duress), then the occupation generally being lawful in Germany is irrelevant. If the personal name given in the filename is wrong, that may be irrelevant to personally identifying her, e.g., from her face. Answering a point raised elsewhere, the lack of additional evidence of prostitution is irrelevant since the caption's label of prostitution is already unequivocal. If it's said that a picture is needed, the solution is one in which a woman is not personally identifiable, such as a picture from another angle. Thank you. ~ Nick Levinson (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- I feel bound to tell you that I'm not an attorney, although I don't think that affects the issue. Nor have I studied Florida law, but have looked in the past at New York law on point. She may be able to sue in any state in which she is present or working, regardless of where Wikimedia Foundation has its servers, in addition to an option of suing in Florida. Nick Levinson (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- The picture is uploaded with permission of the woman on the picture.
- She is a confessing and now former sex worker.
- Prostitution is legal in Germany.
- By the way, is Nick Levinson a single purpose account for this deletion request?
- However I think the photo is correctly deposed on Commons. -- Simplicius (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
- It wouldn't make any difference if my account were an SPA, since the issue is equally valid either way. And you knew it wasn't an SPA just from your own investigation, represented by your link. Nonetheless, for your information in response to your apparent distaste for my telling Wikimedia of its possible legal liability, I've done over a thousand edits and created about a dozen articles. In the course of that work, I saw the image.
- Do you have documentation that would permit Wikimedia Foundation to defend itself? Under U.S. law, either evidence that she could not rebut or have ruled inadmissible or an affirmative affidavit from her is probably what would be needed, along with your affidavit about the photography and any consents obtained. A Wikimedia attorney can answer that better than I can. Filing that evidence with the Foundation may be helpful and necessary.
- In my comment, I noted the possible lawfulness of prostitution in Germany but raised questions based on some prostitution probably being unlawful under some circumstances, and the lack of circumstances criminalizing the conduct at the time and place represented by the facts of the photograph cannot be determined from the information supplied with the image. In this legal environment, I think it may be necessary to show that no negative circumstances are applicable to her case. At any rate, the lawfulness in Germany may not affect her claim in the U.S., where the image is available and being served and where prostitution is unlawful almost everywhere.
- It is of course possible that she has no objection and won't during the time when she could have the right to sue. You say "confessing", from which one may infer that you or she believed she was doing something wrong, raising some doubt that she won't have a complaint. If she is publicly speaking as a former sex worker and keeping her full name private, that last might strengthen her right to sue the Foundation, increasing the need for the Foundation to be able to defend itself if the image and information potentially identifying her, such as her facial likeness, is to be kept available on its servers.
- You may be familiar with a policy on biographies of living people, under which contentious content, not merely libelous content, is to be excluded. While an image is not an article, that may be irrelevant to a libel suit. The legal issue underlying the policy probably is the same for the image and for an article.
- I've indented your reply one more step, since replies should be separated that way.
- Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC) (Minor correction: spacing. 00:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC))
- Keep - see talk page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 07:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
- The talk page is generally about issues other than libel, but it does raise a possibility of the person in the picture having uploaded it. If true, that's a defense for the Foundation, possibly a complete defense, although I can't tell that for sure. It's possible, and technically not very difficult, to take a picture of oneself. I didn't try to confirm that the photographer and the uploader are one and the same. But I tried to confirm that the uploader is the person in the subject image and could not. The personal name is different, besides being incomplete. The face, compared to that in de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Cascari, is not clearly the same (and a clear picture may not be enough to establish that anyway). And a talk page query, if referring to the same image, is unanswered. Nick Levinson (talk) 09:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I will delete it immidiately if the woman in the photo wants me to do so. Kept. Mbdortmund (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The formal procedure for review of a decision to keep an image file in Commons is to renominate for deletion. Otherwise, it would not be my intention to keep reapplying to the same decision-makers. However, this being the established procedure, I am using it once before invoking another procedure.
Pursuant to existing appellate procedure, I asked the keeping admin on their talk page to reconsider, and the admin implicitly opted to stay with the decision to keep.
The previous decision to keep was by an administrator. I recommend that an attorney admitted to a U.S. court review this deletion request, although I understand that the Foundation has a shortage of attorneys available for these reviews.
The Commons image File:0405.Annabell_002.jpg should be deleted. The reason is that the image presents a substantial legal risk for the Wikimedia Foundation because the image is of a female individual described in the caption as a "German Prostitute", because of substantial risks that the image is libelous and/or defamatory, because it cannot be determined whether the female in the image was of the age of consent when the image was created (e.g., photographed), because the Foundation has no way to determine the age of the person as of the time of image creation even if adulthood at the time is asserted and evidence of it were to be offered, because the female appears to be personally recognizable, because there is no clear public record of who the female is (including full name and other identifying information) and there is no evidence that the Foundation privately knows who the female is and that it has received the female's written consent for the image and its caption, and because, with respect to Wikipedia and possibly other Wikimedia properties, by presenting the individual as identifiable and stating a contentious allegation (prostitution), the image with its caption violates WP:BLP, the policy on biographies of living persons, assuming she is alive (many prostituted females reputedly die young).
The applicable law is the strictest of U.S. Federal, Florida, and German law on each point. That is, keeping the image must conform both to the law applicable in Florida, U.S.A., where servers are located, to the law applicable in Germany, if she is subject to German law, or the law applicable wherever else that subjects her to its law, and to the law applicable in Holland, where more Wikimedia Foundation servers are located.
Prostitution may be lawful in Germany. That may be irrelevant to the risk of damage to her because servers are in the U.S. and prostitution is unlawful in most of the U.S. and it may not be necessary for her to prove specific damage from being described as a prostitute in order to be compensated for damages pursuant to a judicial judgment against the Foundation in the event that she sues for any damage occurring prior to any request from her for deletion.
It is not necessary that she give up her privacy (2d post) from the public. However, it is necessary that she give up her privacy from the Foundation. It is sufficient that the Foundation be satisfied that it privately knows who she is and that the Foundation has her consent. I am not asking that she give up her privacy to anyone, including the Foundation. However, if she does not do so, the Foundation has a duty to delete the image.
There are posts from people stating that she is known and has consented (2d and 3d posts, latter unsigned) (2d post), but none of those posts appear to come from the female or from anyone known to be her agent. Therefore, there is no certainty that she even knows of the image. Therefore, she can be damaged even before she requests its deletion, she may be exempt from any duty to mitigate damage, and the Foundation can be held liable for that damage.
There is at least one offer to delete her image immediately upon her request or within seconds (2d post). That, however, fails to protect her right against damage prior to her request. The Foundation now needs her affirmative consent or, if she is not able to consent under the law applicable to her, e.g., if she is still a minor, the affirmative consent of whomever may consent for her, such as one or both of her parents or legal guardians.
There is one post stating that she is old enough to consent but that only refers to her present age and not her age when the image was created and the Foundation does not determine being of the age of consent (last post), partly because it cannot verify that an offered proof of age is not forged, and therefore the Foundation cannot take the word of an editor that she is of age.
There is one post stating that she took the image herself, of herself. This is possible. But the post saying it most unequivocally is unsigned. And, because the Foundation does not know who she is, there is no certainty that she took the image herself.
There is one post implying that she uploaded the image herself. This, too, is possible. It is known who uploaded the image (Cascari, redirecting to Juliana). However, the name of the uploading editor, the name of the image's author (Julica da Costa or Juhu), and the name given in the name of the image file (Annabell) do not match. Thus, absent other information, the Foundation does not know whether the female in the image is the same person as the one who uploaded it. There is thus no certainty that the female in the image uploaded the image herself.
There is a separate image that is apparently (to a non-German reader) of the face of the uploader. Comparing it to the image that should be deleted does not establish that both images are of the same individual.
There is a post asking who is the female in the image that should be deleted. No one replied to that question, and, since then, over four years have passed.
It is possible the female in the image wishes the image to be published as art or for another good purpose. However, because she is not known to the Foundation, any such wish is irrelevant.
The offer to delete the image upon notice from her that she wishes its deletion may be interpreted by a U.S. jury as the Foundation agreeing to damage her until she gives that notice. That conditional offer is unlawful.
She may be estopped from asserting damage if, for example, she asserted something contradicting damage. She may also have failed to mitigate damages. For example, if she published a book about her life in prostitution (assuming she had such a life) and publicly identified herself as a prostituted female or as a prostitute in a way that associates her with the image in Commons, it is possible that if she claims damage her claim will be subject to estoppel. However, there is no evidence of any such contradiction that includes personal identifications relevant to Commons.
There is one post, unsigned, suggesting that the image is needed to illustrate prostitution. That is insufficient ground for retention. At any rate, an illustration of another individual rendered so the individual is not personally identifiable may serve the purpose of illustrating prostitution without damaging anyone or posing a risk to the Foundation.
As the caption is what creates the problem warranting image deletion, possibly editing the caption would be a solution, but I assume that's been objected to by the uploader or that would have been done.
I am not fluent in any natural language except English, so I cannot evaluate what may be said in German.
The image should be deleted. Thank you. ~ Nick Levinson (talk) 08:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC) (I reformatted for readability, by dividing into paragraphs as originally intended except for the automatic input system. 08:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC))
- Keep If so, a bunch of the images without any problem should be deleted too. This image should be kept unless the original author, Juliana/Cascari, who is also the model in the image, shows up and claims the deletion. --TX55TALK 12:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- Images without problems can be kept, but this one already has the problems stated. If others do, too, they also need to be identified and either repaired or deleted, and your assistance in identifying such images would be appreciated. If you have information that the Foundation already knows that in this case the uploader is the female in the image, please state how the Foundation knows, since that almost certainly requires that she have sent an affidavit or comparable legal proof (with the consent) to that effect, and no one has mentioned such an occurrence. She doesn't have to send it or identify herself but then the image can't be kept, given law and policy. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:40, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
- I think it can be assumed the uploader knew what she did. User:Juhu identifies herself as erotic photographer, so she most likely knew the impact of such photos. Also, according to this german user page, she is leader of wikimedia in serbia (and an active user), so a) she can be assumed to be a thrustworthy user and b) she should be asked for her oppinion before starting such lengthy DRs on a poor basis. --PaterMcFly (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Nick Levinson is insisting although some of his points are definitely wrong and I already told him that the woman on the picture knows about the photo and is absolutely capable to inform us if she wants us to delete it. The image was part of her userpage some years ago.[11] Should be kept. --Mbdortmund (talk) 10:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Nick, about the Foundation... shall i upload a picture of Jimbo Wales with the woman to proof? It is one of a public event. Simplicius (talk) 22:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how to read German and don't trust automated translation services for anything critical.
- The presence of the image on an editor's old page does not mean that the female in the image is the editor whose page it was. The personal names are different. And that the image was not carried forward to the latest revision of the user page may mean that even if the old page said it's the same person the removal may be a correction to the effect that they are not the same person.
- That any editor is trusted is not the same thing as consent.
- An editor being an erotic photographer is not the same thing as a subject being known to the Foundation and having consented to the use. And the photographer, if residing in a nation where prostitution is generally lawful, may not have known of the impact in the U.S., where it is mostly unlawful. Most people have no responsibility to know the laws of any nation in which they are not nationals or visitors.
- The photo with the founder is irrelevant. A meeting is not consent.
- I can't ask the image subject's opinion before starting a deletion request, lengthy or not, because all I know of her is her first name, Annabell, who is not clearly identified as an editor under any name in Wikimedia.
- Starting a deletion request automatically notifies at least one editor, but I don't know if that editor is the subject in the image.
- The deletion request is well founded, not poorly based. If you have any disagreement with it other than on whether the image subject's identity is known (that disagreement has been stated), please state those other disagreements.
- If you believe that any legal liability can be remedied by deletion after the subject requests deletion, if the subject is not an editor, that is error, because damage can occur and be compensable before deletion is requested, even if the deletion is immediate.
- Thank you. Nick Levinson (talk) 12:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep. The deletion request may have come from a good intention. But after looking at many photos of that user that she published through the years on the projects (including some deleted ones that can be found elsewhere), it is clear to me that the model seen on this photo is the uploader. If the nominator still has a doubt about it, the simplest solution would be for him to ask the question directly (in English) to the user and get an answer directly from her. Although she has not contributed to Commons in recent years, she has contributed to the German-language Wikipedia (where her last contribution is currently from September 2010), so that is probably a better place to ask. As for the nominator's argument that the file title is not the person's real name, I can't see the point. That is just a file title. If I uploaded a freely reusable photo of myself to illustrate prostitution (the uploader placed it in the de-WP article "prostitution" in 2005), I too would certainly consider it a poor idea to title the file with my real name. (My concerns about this photo are different and relatively minor. Perhaps I only wish that on Commons the description page would make clearer the context of its making. Also, instead of being concerned about this photo of the uploder by herself, maybe I would be more concerned about the photos where she photographed other persons who the descriptions identify as prostitutes.) -- Asclepias (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- This image should probably be treated the same way. Rocket000 (talk) 06:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you.
- Asking the pictured female is a great idea that I would have tried had I been sure that I was reaching her or her agent. All I know of her is that she's Annabell, that might be a pseudonym and for good reason (i.e., we agree), and no Wikimedia or Wikipedia user has that exact name. The author, Juhu, was asked years ago who's in the picture but didn't answer. Asking the uploader only works if we know that the uploader is the pictured female and I don't know that; I haven't seen a list of other pictures of her and what I found was inadequate to tell (I think it was only one image, with eyeglasses). Everything else suggesting she's known is inadequate. And I don't need to know who she is; only the Foundation does. No one on behalf of the Foundation has posted saying that the Foundation has her consent.
- I agree about other photos of identifiable individuals described as being in prostitution. I plan to get to those soon, regardless of who the photographer or uploader is in each case. I only recently noticed several of those images.
- However, pictures of unidentifiable individuals are not a concern. For example, one showed a female whose face was not visible next to a car whose occupant/s were not visible, and that does not present legal problems, so I have no intention of requesting its deletion.
- Nick Levinson (talk) 00:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (Corrected syntax (cut one excess word): 00:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC))
- Keep This is an image of a longstanding and even fairly famous (in Germany) Wikipedian. She is completely open about her life history, has been interviewed in the national press about it (complete with similar images), and couldn't give a toss. And if she did, she could ask for the image to be deleted just like that and I trust we would instantly comply. --JN466 16:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Nick, I understand you made the request with the best intentions, and for all the right reasons. --JN466 16:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep For JN466. Jacopo Werther (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Wenn Julica das weghaben will, wird sie das schon sagen. Lupenreine BNS-Aktion, gerne auch extreme zeitraubing genannt. Antragsteller angemessene Zeit sperren, damit er Gelegenheit hat, viele schöne neue Fotos für commons zu machen. 2cents -- smial (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Per JN466 and the “kept reasoning” in the DR above. --Leyo 23:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
I am creating this in order for the potential of a respect issue to be put on record for a photograph of a prostitute, and for the context of the image to correct this, or for the image to be deleted if there remains significant doubt as to the personality rights of the model in the absence of a specific model consent statement.
Ticket:2014020910009212 raises doubts about about this image and highlights a potential discrepancy in the past discussion here on de.wp as the photographer claims this was a self-photo on a cheap camera with the uploaded image being a scan of the original, however this does not match the evidence of the EXIF data and needs explanation.
There were 2 DRs in 2010 resulting in keep decisions, and the image is widely used on Wikimedia projects. Considering both the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people guideline has changed significantly in that time, and the community's understanding and implementation of it, this alone seems good reason to assess how this image and its background complies with policy and that sufficient records of a release and verification are available and if necessary retained on OTRS. Fæ (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep What is unclear concerning this statement of the depicted person? --Leyo 20:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Exif data in a scanned photo might be right or wrong (mostly they are wrong) The jumping point is, that the model said, this is a self-photo with a cheap camera. But the flash unit is most probably the flash of a semiprofessional camera [12] and this [13] is most probably not a self-photo (both photos belongs to the same series, as you can see the green bag in the background is placed exactly in the same way. This is not a cheap camera (as the account claims) this is not a self-photo (as the account claims). Why does the account don't know this, if she is the prostitute shown on this picture? -- Commadpe (talk) 00:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
![[12]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:0405.Annabell_002.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Cascari1.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The person shown on the photography is quite known, she knows about this photo and she is giving her permission. Don't disturb. Simplicius (talk) 13:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC) PS Commadpe seems to be identical with the blocked stalker EmaAuf.
- Hello, The picture is original, I am the author and gave all permissions to use it for free knowledge a long time ago. I am the model on the photograph and the Commadpe and his argumentation looks very close to the user de:Benutzer_Diskussion:EmaAuf who was blocked in de:Wikipedia because he said he is working in red-light-business and started to stalk me. You can have more information from the blocking administrators https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Koenraad and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Gripweed. I do not work in this business anymore. I think this is the real background for this deletion request. --Juliana (talk) 23:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: There are no serious doubts about the identity of the model and author. If there are discrepancies between Exif data and a statement on some talk page, that is not a reason for deletion, as it may just as well be simply a case of misremembering details which do not change the more important facts. --Rosenzweig τ 23:18, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
private image, out of scope Indeedous (talk) 08:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nominator, this image would be fine for social media, fails COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Estonia; modern building. --193.40.10.180 10:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gino Renni with a URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works of Argentine singer es:Gino Renni (1943—), dated with upload date 2011, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, most likely not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- File:Gino Renni.jpg
- File:Gino Renni1.jpg
- File:Gino Renni2.jpg
- File:Gino Renni3.jpg
- File:Gino renni4.jpg
- File:Gino Renni5.jpg
- File:Gino Renni6.jpg
- File:Gino Renni7.jpg
- File:Gino Renni8.jpg
- File:Gino Renni9.jpg
- File:Gino-renni-2.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd
[edit]These images are not in public domain in the US, as they were all published after 1946.
- File:Hendrik Verwoerd-official-1958.jpg
- File:HF Verwoerd 1950.jpg
- File:HF Verwoerd 1960.jpg
- File:Malan and Verwoerd.JPG
- File:South Africa-National Party-Republic Campaign Fund.jpg
- File:Suid-Afrikaanse kabinet 1958.jpg
- File:Verwoerd-medal.jpg
Underlying lk (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Doesn't matter. This is Fair use. 1/Because in United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders (see Lenz v. Universal Music Corp) 2/ Because these photos are published in South Africa (sometimes by the SA Government) and are now considered to be in the public domain (Copyright Act of 1978, amended 2002). 3/ Because laws of the USA do not apply in SA, Russia, Europe or anywhere else in the world outside the United States. TVL (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FAIRUSE.--Underlying lk (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- yes, only Fair Use available for the USA. But for South Africa and the rest of the (not US) world, these photos, published in South Africa, are now considered to be in the public domain because there is no more SA copyright on this images. Out of respect for the sovereignty of states. TVL (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FAIRUSE.--Underlying lk (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Y a t-il eu plainte ? Quand ? Qui ? Quel lien prouvant cette plainte ? Ces images sont historiques et visibles à travers le monde. Celle de Verwoerd 1958 que j'ai mis sur commons l'est depuis 2009 sans aucune plainte. L'invocation du droit d'auteur ne tient pas puisque il n'existe pas de droits d'auteurs autre que sud-africains sur ces images qui sont d'origines sud-africaines. Et en Afrique du Sud, ces images tombent dans le domaine public au bout de 50 ans. Le seul droit d'auteur dont Wikimédias commons devrait tenir compte ici est celui du pays d'origine. A moins que Wikimédias commons, du fait de sa localisation, ne fasse primer le droit états-unien sur celui des autres pays. Mais je ne vois pas qui serait compétent et légitime aux états-unis pour porter plainte sur des photos sud-africaines tombées dans le domaine public. En outre, il y a plein d'autres photos éligibles sur commons qui ne respectent pas le droit états uniens gelant les droit d'auteurs à l'année 1996. Ne vous acharnez donc pas sur les photos historiques concernant l'Afrique du sud en général et Verwoerd en particulier. Pitié, ne découragez pas les courageux et bénévoles contributeurs des Wikipédias internationaux.Fritz Joubert Duquesne (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not targeting images of any one subject or country, and as a member of WikiProject South Africa I would prefer it if we could keep those images. But the objective of Commons is to be a repository of free images, and these are not free because, as you correctly guessed, the location of the Commons servers in the US means that we also have to abide by American legislation.--Underlying lk (talk) 06:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: A file has to be in the public domain in it's source country and in the United States. Because of the com:URAA these files have a copyright in the United States com:FAIR USE is not allowed Natuur12 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moria Casán with a URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated: see below), licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- 1977
- 1983
- 1980-1989
- File:Moria Casán.jpg ("1980s")
Gunnex (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Raquel Mancini with a URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works about Argentine model en:Raquel Mancini born in 1964, (mostly) undated (1 file dated with 2007), uploaded in a row on 30.11.2011, licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996, copyrighted in US +95 years or failing {{PD-AR-Photo}}.
- File:Mancini1.jpg
- File:Manciniraquel.jpg
- File:Raquel mancini 04-ch.jpg
- File:Raquel mancini 08-ch.jpg
- File:Raquel mancini 09-ch.jpg
- File:Raquel mancini 11-ch.jpg
- File:Raquel mancini 12-ch.jpg
- File:Raquel4 3.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 21:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rolando Rivas, taxista with a URAA-problem
[edit]Argentine works related to es:Rolando Rivas, taxista, an Argentine telenovela aired on 1972 (or the 1974 film version), licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, mostly dated with upload date 2011, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- File:D1311f52b299.jpg
- File:Img ROLANDO RIVAS.jpg
- File:Rolando rivas (1).jpg
- File:ROLANDO RIVAS TAXISTA-Cont-.jpg
- File:Rolando Rivas-ñ.jpg
- File:Rolandorivas-taxista.jpg
- File:RRIVASPORTADA.jpg
- File:Satur Silveyra.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 22:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Old pictures with wrong date, no proof for the license mentioned.
- File:La Salma di papa Benedetto XV dietro la sontuosa cancellata della cappella del Santissimo Sacramento in San Pietro.jpg
- File:Inizio dei novendiali per la morte di papa Benedetto XV nella Cappella Sistina.jpg
- File:Guardie nobili traspostano a braccia basse la barella con la salma di Benedetto XV.jpg
- File:Papa Benedetto XV sul letto funebre allestito nella sala del trono del Palazzo Apostolico.jpg
- File:La salma di Pio X composta sulla lettiga è portata dal Palazzo Apostolico alla basilica vaticana.jpg
- File:Papa Pio X esposto sul catafalco nella sala del trono del Palazzo Apostolico.jpg
- File:Papa Leone XIII sul letto funebre allestito nella sala del trono del Palazzo Apostolico.jpg
- File:Ufficiale Guardia Nobile Pontificia.JPG
- File:Guardia Nobile Pontificia.jpg
Yann (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Antoniioczzz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bolívar Toala (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:205 pintura.jpg
- File:191 pinturas.jpg
- File:190 pinturas.jpg
- File:189 pinturas.jpg
- File:188 pinturas.jpg
- File:187 pinturas.jpg
- File:186 pinturas.jpg
- File:185 pinturas.jpg
- File:184 pinturas.jpg
- File:183 pinturas.jpg
- File:181 pinturas.jpg
- File:182 pinturas.jpg
- File:180 pinturas.jpg
- File:170 grande pinturas.jpg
- File:169 grande pinturas.jpg
- File:171 grande pinturas.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Small and medium size, no EXIF, probably not own work, user with bad history.
- File:Calle Corredera, Jerez de la Fra.jpg
- File:Plaza de Madre de Dios al inicio de su urbanización.jpg
- File:Puente de la Guareña.jpg
- File:Pío XII.jpg
- File:San Jose del Valle.jpg
- File:Asamblea xerecista 17 de julio de 2013.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- * File:Calle Corredera, Jerez de la Fra.jpg is, probably, a copyvio from here.
- * File:Plaza de Madre de Dios al inicio de su urbanización.jpg, from here.
- * File:Puente de la Guareña.jpg, from here.
- * File:Pío XII.jpg is copyrighted by Microsoft (down right square). --LMLM (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Various blasons, most probably not own works.
- File:Escudo Xerez Deportivo FC.jpg
- File:Escudo Jerez CD.png
- File:Escudo Jerez FC.jpg
- File:Escudo Xerez CD 2000.png
- File:Escudo Jerez CF.jpg
- File:Escudo Xerez CD 2963.jpg
- File:Escudo de Guadalcacín.png
- File:Bandera de Guadalcacín.png
Yann (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 13:01, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cilvawutang (talk · contribs)
[edit]The files by this user are of performers,
- the group shot can be found [14] here, marked ©Since 2004, Wu-International,
- two gents #23 of 33 at [15] marked CBS Interactive © 2014 Last.fm Ltd. All rights reserved
- BW Gent #10 of 33 at [16] marked CBS Interactive © 2014 Last.fm Ltd. All rights reserved
- The man close to camera (2014) is found at multiple locations on the web see [17], where it appears to be a mySpace logo among other things.
These images are possible COM:COPYVIO.
- File:Wu-Tang Clan & Cilvaringz.jpg
- File:Cilvaringz.png
- File:Cilvaringz & Ghostface Killah.jpg
- File:Cilvaringz (2014).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The two pictures of Bobby Solo are found on websites around the world, including at [18] and on the "Bobby Solo official fan site" and etc. Possible COM:COPYVIOs.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Three of these images are screenshots, the other three are images of performers. Of those, one is described as an album cover "by Yaakov Lemmer", the other two are not located in at the web addresses given in their "source". I nominate these images for deletion as possible COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:FXEmpire Home Page.png
- File:Vimaleh Mshaloseinu by Yaakov Lemmer.png
- File:Real-time Stock Chart.JPG
- File:FXEHomepage.jpg
- File:Yaakov Lemmer 70th anniversary.jpg
- File:Yaakov "Yanky" Lemmer.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dj David Cortes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are found at multiple locations on web bearing same corner marking and are unlikely to be the own work of the uploader and a possible COM:COPYVIO.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Duytanuniversity (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Estefania de Cisne Cruz (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images are out of COM:SCOPE; Commons is not a personal photo album. None of these images are categorized or in use.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GussinkloRoy (talk · contribs)
[edit]copyvio from those sites http://www.pluggerz.nl/de/pluggerz-custom-made/ , http://www.comfoor.com/de/am-arbeitsplatz/produkte/comfoor-pro/
- File:Pluggerz Doorzichtig.jpg
- File:Pluggerzzwart2062013.jpg
- File:Pluggerzcmdoosje.jpg
- File:Allfithobby.jpg
- File:Allfittravel.jpg
- File:Otoplastieken1RoyGussinklo14-6-2013.jpg
- File:OtoplastiekRoyGussinklo14-6-2013.jpg
- File:OtoplastiekenRoyGussinklo14-6-2013.jpg
Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Juiceentertainment (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two images are screenshots from other webpages or applications. (Remember the 13th & Swenzy Current Design) The gentleman in the red sweater's image (Mark battles) is of low quality and small size with no camera meta data. The black and white image of a man (Ben Bruce) is indeed from the website stated, but each page of that site [19] is marked Copyright 2014 All Rights Reserved. All four images are possible COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Remember The 13th.jpg
- File:Mark battles.jpg
- File:Ben Bruce 2013.png
- File:Swenzy Current Design.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Julierst102 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Argentine works, published/created (or sourced with - as indicated: see below) , licensed with {{PD-AR-Photo}}, not in PD in Argentina at COM:URAA-date 01.01.1996 and copyrighted in US +95 years.
- 1974
- 1979
- 1980
Additionally nominating (unlikely to be "own work"):
taken in 1997 and configured with "(...) album personal Amelia Bence)". Permission needed.
Gunnex (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:43, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
"Donated by a fan" is the source for each of these three images, but they are licensed "PD-old" which certainly images from the 1980s and 1990s are not over 70 years past the death of the photographer even if he or she expired the instant after the shutter clicked.
- File:Bull in the Heather at the 1993 Kentucky Derby.jpg
- File:Wigberto Ramos riding Machito 1987.jpg
- File:Wigberto Ramos.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF, may be derivative work of the sculpture.
- File:Prix Lumière Trophée.jpeg
- File:Globes de Cristal Trophée.jpeg
- File:NMA Trophée.jpg
- File:Pix Molière.png
- File:Victoire de la Musique.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
doubtly own work, OTRS permission required
- File:Alizée Alcaline RFM Party 2014.png
- File:Alizée Blonde Logo.png
- File:Psychedelices Tour Logo.png
- File:Blonde Tour Logo.jpg
- File:Signature d'Alizée mi-taille.png
- File:Alizée Logo 2014.png
- File:Alizée Une enfant du siècle Logo.png
- File:Alizée Tout Alizée Logo.png
- File:Alizée À cause de l'automne Logo.png
- File:Alizée J'en ai marre ! Logo.png
- File:Alizée L'Alizé Logo.png
- File:Alizée Moi... Lolita Logo.png
- File:Alizée Gourmandises Logo.png
- File:Alizée Blonde Logo 2014.png
- File:Festival Paris Cinéma Logo.png
- File:Les Molières Logo.jpg
Kept: except 3. {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Yann (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Padmapiriyan (talk · contribs)
[edit]The orange card image stock base is from [20] here and is possible COM:COPYVIO. The other two images are out of COM:SCOPE; Commons is not a personal photo album or social media. None of the images is in use.
- File:Kattumavadai p bharathidasan 2014-01-06 06-21.jpg
- File:Thx 2013-12-17 05-35.jpg
- File:My gift thx wikipedia thx 2013-12-16 04-26.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Rozac 14 + blocks, most likely fan pics grabbed from internet.
Gunnex (talk) 09:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with nominator, these don't look like "own work" and much more like fan collections. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shayanm1992 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probabky not own work: small size, no EXIF, promo shots.
- File:Googoosh behind the scene.jpg
- File:Princessjoules.jpg
- File:Hengameh-Aghoosh.jpg
- File:Mahnaz Afshar in Rottherdam film festival.jpg
- File:Hengameh and sogand.JPG
- File:Hengameh1.jpg
Yann (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work, no source, no permission.
Yann (talk) 14:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sünen Şükran (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:42, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TECNOLOGIA CAQUETA (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam or blatant advertising.
- File:Cotizacion General No. 000236 Portatil JHON CARLOS.pdf
- File:Cotizacion General No. 000236 Portatil JHON CARLOS.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta redes y Equipos Tecnologicos Servicio a Nivel nacional.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y su Poder De trabajo Honesto.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y soluciones tecnologiacas.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Servicios.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Compumax.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Compacq unidos.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Samsung.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Qbex.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta Venta de Portatiles de Ultima Generacion.jpg
- File:Tecnologia caqueta Venta de Impresoras.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta en el Mundo Entero.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta Innovacion Sin Limites.jpg
- File:Productos y servicios Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Logotipo Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta y Lenovo.jpg
- File:Logo Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Gerente Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:Certificado de Davivienda a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Certificacion a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar por parte de El Banco Caja Social.jpg
- File:Certificado Bancolombia a Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Carta de Presentacion de Tecnologia Caqueta.pdf
- File:Certificacion de Compugia Ingenierias a Juan Alejandro Urquina y Tecnologia Caqueta.jpg
- File:HOJA DE VIDA JUAN ALEJANDRO URQUINA TOVAR 1.pdf
- File:Certificado de Compugiar Ingenierias a Tecnologia Caqueta y Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Juan Alejandro Urquina Tovar.jpg
- File:Certificado Icell.jpg
- File:Certificado Dane.jpg
- File:Certificado de La Super Intendencia de Industria y Comercio.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Look like blatant advertising.
Jespinos (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
While this photo does appear to be be a VOA photo and as such a work created by a U.S. Federal employee, it is a derivative work of the R.O.C. (Taiwan) CDC graphic that is prominently featured in the photo. Unfortunately, unlike the U.S. CDC, the Taiwan CDC can and does claim copyright over the works produced by its employees (for example, see the copyright statement on their website or their latest annual report). Neither a claim of de minimus use or the freedom of panorama in Taiwan are sufficient to cover this case either. —RP88 02:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
necsito cambiarla Sirfrederickgol (talk) 05:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Looks to me like this derives almost all of its interest from a copyrighted work (the squid). No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the U.S. Jmabel ! talk 07:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Jmabel ! talk 08:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. Jmabel ! talk 08:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Double: File:Inhaca Island, location.png. Other one is public domain. Grashoofd (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyrighted and owned by Jack C Mancino Bettolino (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
dubious "permission". In fact " �Copyright 2011" 91.66.152.124 15:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This photo was sent directly by Ebere Onwudiwe himself, sole owner of the website and the person photographed
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It is ambiguous, mixing component and sum encodings. It doesn't provide adequate benefits to conceptualization compared to existing depictions, which code the tensors differently from their components and which express some geometric interpretation of the tensors. It is not used by any main namespace pages, and I no longer like it. LokiClock (talk) 17:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
no freedom of panorama in us. FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I can find no proof of this license. FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
File:LVR-Direktorin Ulrike Lubek beim Festakt zum 60. Jubiläum der Landschaftsverbände in Münster (2013).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Ich arbeite für den Landschaftsverband Rheinland und möchte dieses Bild in den Wikipedia-Eintrag von LVR-Direktorin Ulrike Lubek einbinden. Das funktioniert nicht. Möglicherweise weil der Dateiname einen Bindestrich hat. Ich bitte um Löschung dieses Bildes, damit ich es unter einem anderen Dateinamen noch einmal hochladen kann. Danke, Andrea Steinert LVR03 (talk) 18:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Podgorica, Montenegro for modern bridges. Leoboudv (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright sign in picure Yger (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Does not respect PD-Text/Logo + Copyvio Aga (d) 19:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
copyright text in picture Yger (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bitte dieses Bild löschen, da es im Dateinamen einen Bindestrich hat und nicht verlinkt werden kann. LVR03 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bitte dieses Bild löschen, da es im Dateinamen einen Bindestrich hat und nicht verlinkt werden kann. LVR03 (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Possibly a copyright violation, can't get the size right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meeples10 (talk • contribs) 2014-02-05T21:34:30 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
This is not FOP. Built in 2008. Most of the Tigutorn images were already removed, see here. Kulmalukko (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Podgorica is in Montenegro. Leoboudv (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in Montenegro for modern art and architecture. This is in Montenegro Leoboudv (talk) 22:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Montenegro. Podgorica is in Montenegro. Leoboudv (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
The licensing indicates that this image is a copy of a public domain image, for which copyright has expired (life of authors + 70 years). However, no information is provided to back this claim. Moreover, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshikazu_Okada, this person was born in 1901. He seems older than 45 years old on the picture, so it is likely that the picture was taken after 1945, and thus is not even 70 years old. Schutz (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama for modern bridges in Montenegro. Podgorica is in Montenegro. Leoboudv (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 12:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I'm not totally sure on this one, but I think it should at least be discussed. No freedom of panorama for sculptures in the United States. It seems to me that "Hammering Man" figures more prominently in this picture than is consistent with our standards for not violating FOP. Jmabel ! talk 08:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - Although the Hammering Man is seen in this photo, it is not a photo of the Hammering Man. This is a street scene taken in Seattle,Washington, with the Seattle Art Museum figured most prominently in the photo. It would be impossible to take an image of the Seattle Art Museum without also the Hammering Man. The fact that the Hammering Man can be seen within the photo should not prevent the photographer from claiming a copyright over his street scene photograph. Dolovis (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded at http://www.dotspin.com/user_photos/view/389/user-profile in 05.2013 by user "valeriabaroniok" (who might be es:Valeria Baroni) and configured with {{Cc-by-3.0}}, the photo (taken by unknown photographer) was previously published via official Facebook https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=139157266218398&set=pb.104211719712953.-2207520000.1392026436.&type=1&theater (05.2012). Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Dotspin is a system that allows you to share a picture from Instagram, Twitter or Facebook under a CC license. You can see here how it works and the terms of service. To upload the images, your Dotspin account has to be linked and authenticated with your Facebook/Twitter/Instagram profile, so it is clear that is the same person. You can see here, for example, that Valeria Baroni uploaded this image with the #dotspin hashtag to her Instagram account [21] and it is collected on Dotspin here: [22]. So, the image was clearly uploaded by the actress and decided to use a compatible CC license (in other photos, she has chosen a more restrictive one) so no additional permission is needed. --B1mbo (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
The uploader is not the creator of the flag of Cape Town (so PD-self is not valid), and it doesn't seem simple enough for using the PD-shape template. Underlying lk (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 01:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mind explaining why?--Underlying lk (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 12:49, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
je ne suis pas dans la bonne catégorie. Les logos ont apparemment des regles spécifiques. I'm not in the right category. Logo have specific rules. CIGB-ICOLD (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
je ne suis pas dans la bonne catégorie. Les logos ont apparemment des regles spécifiques. I'm not in the right category. Logo have specific rules. CIGB-ICOLD (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 12:48, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: unused file, advertising or self-promotion BrightRaven (talk) 15:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep. Definitely not out of scope, several mentions in German WP. Updated info on the file ("unfrenched" it). -- The South Harz Journey (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: In scope to be worth keeping, though hopefully it will become used at some point soon. James F. (talk) 00:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Darkking3 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: As photographer of this image: The content of this image violates copyrights-agreements which were specified from the owner of the testing facilities, hereby named as Technische Universität Dresden.
Als Eigentümer des bildes: Der Bildinhalt verletzt URV-Ansprüche, welche in Abstimmung mit dem Testlabor als Teil der Technischen Universität Dresden getroffen wurden.
Converted by me to DR, as the image was uploaded nearly 2 years ago and has quite some external uses[23], which need to be taken care of. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Keep. Rationale:
- Authorship not disputed.
- Revoking of an issued license not possible.
- Object is not protected by copyright law.
- A possible limitation may represent a contractual agreement between TU-Desden and the photographer (in this case) and is not binding third parties.
- Urheberschaft wird nicht bestritten.
- Ein Zurückziehen einer erteilten Lizenz nicht möglich.
- Dargestelltes Objekt nicht urheberrechtlich geschützt, physische Besitzverhältnise spielen bzgl. Urheberrecht keine Rolle.
- Eine eventuelle Fotografieeinschränkung oder "Abstimmung" stellt möglicherweise eine vertragsrechtliche Vereinbarung zwischen, in diesem Fall der TU-Desden einerseits und dem Fotografen anderseits dar, und ist betreffend Dritten nicht bindend.
- Comment How is it possible to an university to have (or claim) copyright on some piece of industrial machinery? Tm (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Kept: The claim of violation of contract is far too late (and is a complaint to the photographer, not a subsequent host). James F. (talk) 00:03, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Seems to me this derives virtually all of its visual interest from a temporary sign that is based on a photograph of an ancient sculplture. While a direct photo of the sculpture would be no problem, I believe there is a problem here in that the photo on the sign is presumably copyrighted. Jmabel ! talk 08:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep - all images of the "ancient statue" mentioned by the nominator are in the public domain and may be used by anyone for any purpose. Dolovis (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 06:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Sorry, but the original sculpture is probably a work of art and thereby copyrighted. Regrettably, there is no freedom-of-panorama exemption in Lithuania. So, you need either to provide a permission from the original sculptor or the image needs to be deleted. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Same sculpture:
- File:Miškininkų Street 6 Jonava, A. Kazlauskas.JPG
- File:Miškininkų Street 4 Jonava, autor A. Kazlauskas.JPG
Permit has been obtained from autor sculptor Andrius Kazlauskas (my neighbour in Jonava). --Forestphotograph (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org , for details see OTRS. --Túrelio (talk) 09:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have oral permission from autor sculptor Andrius Kazlauskas. --Forestphotograph (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am not sure that would be sufficient. But you may ask at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. --Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have oral permission from autor sculptor Andrius Kazlauskas. --Forestphotograph (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Lithuania. If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 08:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work, no source, no permission, bogus license. Yann (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Hi! Yann, actually I was not familiar enough with wikimedia. Now days, I am getting much information about my previous works, uploads.
- I am sending license supporting email one by one at permissions-en@wikimedia.org
- Few seconds before, I send an email to this address seeking license of this file: File:Dulhae Hazrath Rahe Bhander.jpg
- Hope, you may, consider my disability and oblige thereby....Sufidisciple (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have definitive, explicit written and/or textual, tangible evidence from a credible, verifiable source naming this file as freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we simply cannot host it on Commons FASTILY 08:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of project scope. ~MOHEEN (keep talking) 06:50, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg
[edit]This is a modern building in France. The architect hasn't been dead for 70 years yet.
- File:Ep strasbourg 1.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 11.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 15.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 16.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 19.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 2.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 20.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 21.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 22.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 23.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 3.jpg
- File:Ep strasbourg 4.jpg
- File:Europaeisches Parlament .JPG
- File:EuroParl1180710-3.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180710-5.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180719-2008-LF.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180719.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180720-2.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180720.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180725-2.jpg
- File:EuroParl1180725.jpg
- File:European parliament strasbourg 24.jpg
- File:European parliament strasbourg 25.jpg
- File:European Parliament- arrival hall.jpg
- File:European Parliament- Courtyard (at night).jpg
- File:European Parliament- Courtyard.jpg
- File:Europäisches Parlament Nobelpreis.JPG
- File:Eurpean Parliament- elevators.jpg
- File:Festung europa2.jpg
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4349.jpg
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4353.jpg
- File:Strasbourg European Parliament.jpg
- File:Strassburg Europaparlament Fassade.jpg
- File:The Immeuble Louise Weiss (2519898841).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Comment I don't think that common “pieces”, e.g. File:Strassburg Europaparlament Fassade.jpg, is eligible for copyright. --Leyo 18:51, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:TOO#France. The façade seems more artistic than a nail clipper. --Stefan4 (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see anything artistic in this photograph. It looks just like functional elements. --Leyo 11:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks more artistic and less functional than a nail clipper. Also, COM:UA is specifically about US law and doesn't hold in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO this nailclipper is more artistic. But I will stop here. --Leyo 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It's a bit annoying that we only have access to the court decision and not to the court reasoning in those French TOO cases. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- IMHO this nailclipper is more artistic. But I will stop here. --Leyo 14:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- It looks more artistic and less functional than a nail clipper. Also, COM:UA is specifically about US law and doesn't hold in France. --Stefan4 (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see anything artistic in this photograph. It looks just like functional elements. --Leyo 11:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in France FASTILY 07:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg
[edit]There is no FOP in France, so unfortunately these files will need to be deleted.
File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-001.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-002.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-014.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-015.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-016.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-017.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-018.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-019.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-020.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-021.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-022.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-023.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-024.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-025.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-026.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-027.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-028.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-029.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-030.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-031.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-032.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-033.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-034.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-035.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-036.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-037.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-038.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-039.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-040.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-041.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-042.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-043.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-044.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-045.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-046.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-047.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-048.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-049.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-050.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS (transferred to dewiki)File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-160.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRSFile:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-161.jpgPermission by the European Parliament in OTRS- File:Außenaufnahmen-1009.jpg (transferred to dewiki)
- File:Drapeau du Parlement Européen de Strasbourg.JPG (transferred to dewiki)
- File:Flaggen.jpg (transferred to dewiki)
- File:Hémicycle.JPG
- File:Hémicycle2.JPG
- File:Inside Louise Weiss building - going down the spiral staircase.jpg
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4294.jpg - Note: previously kept per de-minimis in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4297.jpg
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4297.jpg - Note: previously kept per de-minimis in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4297.jpg
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4300.jpg - Note: Similar to the previous photograph.
- File:Institutions europeennes IMG 4304.jpg - Note: Similar to the previous photograph.
- File:Parlement Européen de Strasbourg.png (transferred to dewiki)
- File:The European Parliament in Strasbourg (3245311358).jpg (transferred to dewiki)
- File:The European Parliament in Strasbourg (3501745026).jpg (transferred to dewiki)
- File:TramStrasbourg ParlementEuropéen drapeaux.JPG (transferred to dewiki)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
russavia (talk) 06:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Was soll ich denn nun noch weiter tun, als die Genehmigung ans OTRS zu schicken? --Ralf Roleček 07:15, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Warum steht das OTRS-Ticket nicht bei den Infos unter den Bildern? Beim Festivalsommer haben wir das gleich mit in die Vorlage gepackt. -- Smial (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ich habe ans OTRS geschrieben und gebeten, daß sie Template:Wikipedians in European Parliament 2014/Gebäude mit Ticketnummer versehen. --Ralf Roleček 11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dann weiß ich auch nicht, was man als Wikiknipser noch machen soll. Hier sollen Bilder mit Aufnahmegenehmigung gelöscht werden, nebenan werden Bilder gegen den Willen des Knipsers behalten. Nuja, ich gehe mal vor die Tür, eine rauchen. -- Smial (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ich habe ans OTRS geschrieben und gebeten, daß sie Template:Wikipedians in European Parliament 2014/Gebäude mit Ticketnummer versehen. --Ralf Roleček 11:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Warum steht das OTRS-Ticket nicht bei den Infos unter den Bildern? Beim Festivalsommer haben wir das gleich mit in die Vorlage gepackt. -- Smial (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- In for instance File:Flaggen.jpg it is the flags that is the subject. // 62.190.112.2
- The photo of the flags have clearly been taken to include the building in the background -- it is possible, I believe, to have a photo of the flags to be taken without the building being visible. russavia (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- No istnt it. such a photo of the flags to be taken without the building being visible is only possible from inside of restricted area. But we have Permission for all of our photos! --Ralf Roleček 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- The photo of the flags have clearly been taken to include the building in the background -- it is possible, I believe, to have a photo of the flags to be taken without the building being visible. russavia (talk) 10:10, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Some files were previously discussed in Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Institutions_europeennes_IMG_4297.jpg and kept as de-minimis. Esby (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Although this might be stating the obvious, WikiCommons is not in France, and as such local considerations should not matter. Also, aiui, these images were taken by permission of the Parliament and are part of the relevant project. To remove them therefore would be more than a little self-defeating! --AlisonW (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete FoP in France is clear enough and rationales to keep based on "permission of the Parliament" is irrelevant as it is the architects' copyright that we must respect (AS.Architecture-Studio (c) 1999), not an administrator for the European Parliament. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Du behauptest also, Frau van Kampen vergibt seit 15 Jahren illegal Film- und Fotolizenzen? --Ralf Roleček 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no intention of making statements about whether others are acting legally or not. Provide a link to an act of Parliament which proves that copyright cannot apply, or provide a verifiable release from the copyright holder, rather than statements giving permission to take photographs during the event which are not copyright releases and are not from the copyright holder. --Fæ (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
- Du behauptest also, Frau van Kampen vergibt seit 15 Jahren illegal Film- und Fotolizenzen? --Ralf Roleček 20:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Its absurd, to assume that the European Parliament is providing a photo permission not covering copyright issues. This permission was not restricted to daily press use, but covers all sorts of commercial and uncommercial usage including free licences. And to my knowledge the paliament holds all the rights nescessary for that. --Martin Kraft (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- By the way: The European Parliament is extraterritorial! --Martin Kraft (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- To avoid the deletion of the pictures we should ask Mrs van Kampen to clarify the permission and to add a statement on the copyright of the Parliament building. In my opinion, this should be done by the person who had contact with her before (Olaf?). Otherwise, I volunteer to for contacting her. --ireas :talk: 21:37, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as the EP is not part of France (as per Martin Kraft) and a photo permission was even provided (as per Ralf Roletschek). —DerHexer (Talk) 21:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Pour toutes les raisons exprimées ci-dessus par mes confrères. --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
- Either: Sort the issue with the Parliament or the Architect studio, either Keep or delete the concerned pictures... Also Keep the pictures that were kept previously for de-minimis rationale: the given view with the flags is the view you have when you arrive to the parliament, nothing less nothing more. The fact the building in background is protected is a deminimis rationale as long the subject is the flags. I also don't know if the 'Place des terreaux' act could be applied here. Esby (talk) 22:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Info Permission by the European Parliament for all images taken during "Wiki loves Parliaments" is received in OTRS. Raymond 10:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no credible evidence suggesting that these images are licensed under a Commons-compatiable license. Furthermore, OTRS has informed me that the emails received do not contain sufficient permission details to allow the files to be hosted on Commons. -FASTILY 06:24, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note by user:esby - I restored 4 files that were kept by De-Minimis in a previous DR, these files should be handled separately. See here Esby (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg
[edit]I think that the interior architecture of the parliament building (not people, plants or furniture) is the subject of these photos. As discussed at w:de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Kurier#Nachtrag_zu_.E2.80.9EMal_wieder:_.C3.84rger_mit_Commons.E2.80.9C_.2F_.E2.80.9EWeitere_L.C3.B6schwut_auf_Commons.E2.80.9C, there may be a problem with the permission recorded in OTRS.
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-107.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-108.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-109.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-114.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-115.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-130.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-131.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-136.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-137.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-138.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-139.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-140.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-141.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-142.jpg
Rybec (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete There has been no release from the architect and no evidence supplied by anyone that the rights of the architect are not protected in law; this includes Ticket:2014020510008962 as of the current date. --Fæ (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Info The information I posted on WD:K in the German language Wikipedia only applies to the exterior of the building. Mrs van Kampen told me by telephone that there is no problem with pictures of the interior, e. g. the plenary. --ireas (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, in what way does Mrs van Kampen represent the Architect? --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not want to imply this. I just want to make clear that the disclosure that I received only applies to pictures of the exterior. Things might be different (= better for us) for pictures of the interior. --ireas (talk)
- It may be an idea to highlight which photographs are focused on interior features/decore/transient scenes rather than any significant representation of the Architecture. --Fæ (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I did not want to imply this. I just want to make clear that the disclosure that I received only applies to pictures of the exterior. Things might be different (= better for us) for pictures of the interior. --ireas (talk)
- Thanks, in what way does Mrs van Kampen represent the Architect? --Fæ (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
- I attempted to exclude those from this DR. However, in File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-109.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-138.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-139.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-141.jpg, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-115.jpg and File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-114.jpg, people can be seen. In File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-107.jpg a person and a piece of equipment are shown. I've added annotations. Rybec (talk) 00:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Copyright law makes no distinction between interior and exterior architecture. I see nothing in any of these that would make the architecture de minimis. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- deleted: Per discussion Natuur12 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg
[edit](See previous DRs.) Same reason, {{NoFoP-France}}
- File:14-02-05-straszburg-RalfR-01.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-080.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-084.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-094.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-095.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-096.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-106.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-107.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-108.jpg
- File:14-02-06-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-109.jpg
- File:EP-2014 231.JPG
- File:EP-2014 247.JPG
- File:EP-2014 264.JPG
- File:EU-Parlament, Strassburg, Parlamentsbrücke.jpg
- File:Kiefer Europaparlament, Strasbourg, Frankreich (13465339734).jpg
- File:Parlement européen 2.JPG
- File:Parlement européen.JPG
- File:Strasbourg Quartier Européen (6).JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Josve05a (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, previous erroneous deletions can't change the fact that this is a public building paid with the taxes of EU-citizens, and the photos were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project. The description of File:14-02-05-straszburg-RalfR-01.jpg should be fixed. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean anything. COpyright law in France still apply, no matter who paid for the building (justas with a painting or a movie, you can't reproduce it) and "were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project" doesn't mean anything either Have you watched anything from Wiki Loves Monument? Lots of COM:FoP issues, and copyright problems. Josve05a (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- They solved that problem somehow for their own "LOW" images, it involves mentioning "Louise WEISS building: © Architecture Studio". –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Although the page reads "Rights usage terms", the page only lists the copyright holders of some buildings, without providing any usage terms for them. The linked page is therefore of no use for us. --Stefan4 ( talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the link was for photo copyright details, their general usage terms are at the bottom of this and all other pages at Legal Notice. But their general legal notice doesn't help here. –Be..anyone (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is nonderivative and therefore not acceptable on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- They solved that problem somehow for their own "LOW" images, it involves mentioning "Louise WEISS building: © Architecture Studio". –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- That doesn't mean anything. COpyright law in France still apply, no matter who paid for the building (justas with a painting or a movie, you can't reproduce it) and "were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project" doesn't mean anything either Have you watched anything from Wiki Loves Monument? Lots of COM:FoP issues, and copyright problems. Josve05a (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all images in this section. Under French law, you may not distribute pictures of buildings unless the architect has been dead for at least 70 years. This is not the case here. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as per Stefan4. Natuur12 (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:European Parliament, Strasbourg
[edit]To quote Jim (Jameslwoodward): "Copyright law makes no distinction between interior and exterior architecture." {{NoFoP-France}}
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-110.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-116.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-143.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-144.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-145.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-146.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-147.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-148.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-149.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-150.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-151.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-152.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-153.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-154.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-155.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-156.jpg
- File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-157.jpg
- File:Wiki loves Parliament - EU (Strasbourg) - interior - art on walls.jpeg
- File:Wiki loves Parliament - EU (Strasbourg) - Interior 01.JPG
_-_interior_-_art_on_walls.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Interior_01.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Josve05a (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
- It is no France, it is EP.
- Permission is given. --Ralf Roleček 07:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- TO quote Jameslwoodward again, since I'm lazy: "Again, being authorized to take pictures does not say anything about the license required for the copyrights of the works photographed. Would you say that this authorization means that any modern works of art hanging on the walls are fair game for photographers? Of course not, their copyrights remain under the control of the artists, just as the copyright for the building remains in control of the architect. [...] The permission says nothing about copyright license, but just gives permission to take photographs, much as many museums and other tourist sites require permission for photographers." See the second DR on this page from the top. Josve05a (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand why do you want to delete these pictures? Because it's a modern building? But it's a "public space". So it's forbidden to take a picture of all modern buildings? ;p (Sorry for my English). Niko67000 (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- TO quote Jameslwoodward again, since I'm lazy: "Again, being authorized to take pictures does not say anything about the license required for the copyrights of the works photographed. Would you say that this authorization means that any modern works of art hanging on the walls are fair game for photographers? Of course not, their copyrights remain under the control of the artists, just as the copyright for the building remains in control of the architect. [...] The permission says nothing about copyright license, but just gives permission to take photographs, much as many museums and other tourist sites require permission for photographers." See the second DR on this page from the top. Josve05a (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- The architect owns the copyright to the building. Just as you cannot make copies of a recent book and sell them, or make copies of recent paintings and sell them, you cannot take photographs of recent architecture and sell them. Some countries allow this for buildings, but not France. Commons requires that images be free for commercial use, so we cannot keep these without permission from the architect. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But here on Wikicommons we don't sell pictures. And if we add "Architecture Studio 1999" (architecte and date of the constuction) on the description, that coulb be good? Niko67000 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- As I said above, "Commons requires that images be free for commercial use" -- that is because there are very few uses that are not commercial. Just as giving credit to the author does not allow you to sell copies of a book, so giving credit to the architect does not allow infringing on his copyright. As shown by the several discussions above, this issue is really very well settled.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- But here on Wikicommons we don't sell pictures. And if we add "Architecture Studio 1999" (architecte and date of the constuction) on the description, that coulb be good? Niko67000 (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
IMO at least these images are ok in terms of De Minimis. Here the architecture is clearly not the subject and the things visible hardly meet the Threshold of originality. // Martin Kraft (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
The European Parliament NO is France! --Ralf Roleček 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Strasbourg is in France, and the European Parliament is in France either. Yet it is extraterritorial (German: exterritorial). This means it is not within the sovereignity of France. But it is within the French legal order. See e. g. the Duden Recht lexicon (German) about Exterritorialität:
- Exterritorialität: die kraft Völkerrechts zugunsten bestimmter Personen und Sachen bestehende Ausnahme von der Gerichtsbarkeit und Zwangsgewalt (nicht von der Rechtsordnung) des Gebietsstaates.
- Duden Recht A-Z. Fachlexikon für Studium, Ausbildung und Beruf. 2. Aufl. Mannheim: Bibliographisches Institut & F.A. Brockhaus 2010. Lizenzausgabe Bonn: Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung
- Even if this would not be the case, your argument is not valid: If the EP would not be in France, there are two options:
- There is no copyright in the EP. We would be allowed to use the photo. But this would also mean that all other works in the EP would not be eligible to copyright – your pictures, texts, … I think it is obvious that this can’t be the case.
- An other copyright law applies. But which one? And to use the pictures, you had to prove that there this other copyright law has an exemption for freedom of panorama.
- There are only two things that would enable us to keep the photos:
- The depicted architecture is not eligible to copyright or de minimis. This has to be checked for each file individually.
- We get a permission by the copyright owner. At the moment, we do not have this permission. We would have to contact the architect to receive it.
- Regards, ireas (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, the photos were created for/with/by some "Wiki loves everybody" project. –Be..anyone (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- How would that have any relevance in regard to copyright? --Túrelio (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
- Delete in general. Both the interior and the exterior of the building are copyrighted. In some cases, the images focus on things which may have been made by other people than the architect. For example, File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-152.jpg focuses on some stairs which were maybe designed by someone else. Still, that doesn't make the image free; it just means that you should ask someone else for permission (or wait until someone else has been dead for at least 70 years). Compare with this case where Getty Images France was fined for violating the copyright to two different chair models. The stairs and the chairs seem to be of similar creativity. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Natuur12 (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)