Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/04/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Demo_Gleiche_Rechte_für_alle_-_Plakat.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){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_(869802155).jpg){kind=link}
_(Born_May_16,_1991)_is_a_22_year_old_vlogger,_gamer,_parody_maker,_singer,_and_model-_He_and_good_friend_Brittany_Joyal_are_known_for_their_parody_channel_"WinterSpr_2013-08-27_21-41.jpg){kind=link}
_prototype.gif){kind=link}
Wrong redirect / source file is deleted.AntonTalk 04:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied per nom, no need for DR. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Nothing indicates this is free. FunkMonk (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: just a copyright violation. JuTa 20:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Non-free image (copyrighted Japanese show) taken from a website. No indication of free licence permission. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 20:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
because i don't want people to see me online, i uploaded this file by mistake and now i don't know how to delete it so could you please delete it for me. Thanks A lot.. NazimKhalifa (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope: & Ticket#2014041810009835 -- Steinsplitter (talk) 10:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of File:Gemma Arterton 2013.jpg Lady Lotus (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Will apply {{Duplicate}} to these files and deal with that way russavia (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
uploaded by accident, please remove Tssinger (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Krd 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Sealle (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio - logo --D-Kuru (talk) 19:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
I don´t want an userpage Syum90 (talk) 09:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio user requested deletion --D-Kuru (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
DW of the medal LGA talkedits 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine LGA talkedits 00:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
no FoP in Ukraine LGA talkedits 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- OK, I've transferred the file to ruWiki (it doesn't care about FoP). Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the image description, the purpose of this file is for the purposes of providing a picture on a user page. However, the only place which this image is currently displayed is at the "Thecomputernerd01" English Wikipedia article. The image apparently serves to illustrate that article's subject. However, there is no proof that this picture depicts the subject, nor is there proof that the uploader is the person who created the work. Unless it can be unequivocally proven that this image is a) a picture of Thecomputernerd01 and b) licensed under a free license, this image should be deleted. Mz7 (talk) 00:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I would say
Delete per grabbed from internet without clearing copyrights. Gunnex (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Self promotion Fixertool (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of SCOPE. FDMS 4 03:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don´t understand what is wrong with this file--Werner100359 (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seemed like an accidentally uploaded personal image to me. FDMS 4 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is one of the photos, which i shot during the match. It was taken after the match on the way home. The 3 boys are supporters of FC Red Bull Salzburg as you can clearly see.--Werner100359 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- As you did not upload it by accident the question is whether this image is realistically useful for an educational purpose. FDMS 4 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It is one of the photos, which i shot during the match. It was taken after the match on the way home. The 3 boys are supporters of FC Red Bull Salzburg as you can clearly see.--Werner100359 (talk) 13:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- It seemed like an accidentally uploaded personal image to me. FDMS 4 13:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Either this monitor is displaying copyrighted content or this picture has been photoshopped and is therefore out of SCOPE. FDMS 4 03:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I have not used Photoshop, this is the original file. And I am not able to see any copyrighted item on this picture.--Werner100359 (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph displayed on the screen … FDMS 4 13:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can´t understand this. If it is so, I´m also not allowed to load up a photo of the score board? Sorry, but you are more royalist than the king. --Werner100359 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe COM:Derivative works (de: COM:Bearbeitungen) can explain it better than I do. If the scoreboard was turned off (and, if we had no FOP in Austria, was no piece of artwork above TOO itself) there would not be problems, but as it was turned on your photograph is a derivate work of the photograph or video broadcast visible on the scoreboard. FDMS 4 14:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I can´t understand this. If it is so, I´m also not allowed to load up a photo of the score board? Sorry, but you are more royalist than the king. --Werner100359 (talk) 13:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The photograph displayed on the screen … FDMS 4 13:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
File:2013-02-16 - Wien - Demo Gleiche Rechte für alle (Refugee-Solidaritätsdemo) - Demo Gleiche Rechte für alle - Plakat.jpg
[edit]_-_Demo_Gleiche_Rechte_f%C3%BCr_alle_-_Plakat.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Demo_Gleiche_Rechte_f%C3%BCr_alle_-_Plakat.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No permanent installation, therefore FOP does not apply. FDMS 4 03:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For a more detailed (German) explanation please see Special:Diff/121638055 (#1). FDMS 4 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
promotional, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 03:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of advertisements. Unused. Out of scope. Sreejith K (talk) 04:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Precautionarily the picture of this rapper (stereotype) is not De minimis. FDMS 4 04:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For a more detailed (German) explanation please see Special:Diff/121638055 (#2). FDMS 4 13:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No permanent installation, therefore FOP does not apply (De minimis does neither). FDMS 4 04:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
For a more detailed (German) explanation please see Special:Diff/121638055 (#3). FDMS 4 13:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Template outside templatespace and redundant to Template:Provinces of Calabria TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Low Quality. I have better pictures. Hockei (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Grossly overexposed, better version is File:(1)St_Marys_Cathedral_Sydney_Australia.jpg Sardaka (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Very poor quality,not used, out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No author's permission. Sealle (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Personal artwork? Is this a CGI? Not usable due to small resolution (pixels) Avron (talk) 08:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Derivated & cropped from http://dormiyani.photoblog.ir/358670.htm (~ 2012 = +/- 1391, not identifiable author) = http://dormiyani.photoblog.ir/photos/do49556298.jpg (high res original version, identical exif) Gunnex (talk) 08:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Per exif (in Commons) attributed to "photographer = VARASTAD". Gunnex (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Nominating also (considering that the uploader Nejebad (talk · contribs) has a long history of copyvios, other related deletions + blocks):
- File:Namaz Statue.jpg --> (watermarked with "© Mahshid Torkan)
- File:Namaz Statue.jpg --> similar applied technique as File:Sheykhbahaei fort.jpg where uploader manipulated exif-infos and photoshopped the file to hide origin from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/16536037 (2008, © All rights reserved by mehdi saeidi). In at least another case (File:Omid nooshin.jpg) uploader manipulated again exif-infos. Details at User talk:Nejebad (if not blanked).
Gunnex (talk) 09:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unused private image, poor quality Torsch (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete this--MediaJet talk 14:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete this--MediaJet talk 14:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Similarly if the author is not specified we cannot be certain they were an employee of the British Government. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Bad quality; unused in personal pages Ciaurlec (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Similarly if the author is not specified we cannot be certain they were an employee of the British Government. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Utter Bullshit,D.S was born in 1884 and this is a Photo taken at the beginning of his career,that's around Early 1900 s,could be 1900-1910.--MediaJet talk 13:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Please try to remain civil. Let us assume that the photo was taken in 1910, that the photographer was 30 years old when the photo was taken and he died when he was 70 years old. This means that the photographer died in 1950. That is only 64 years ago and therefore ineligible for PD.--Obi2canibe (talk) 13:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Similarly if the author is not specified we cannot be certain they were an employee of the British Government. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am Very Sure,and Confident that this Photograph is a Work of an employee of the Government of Ceylon,though I cannot Prove it,If anyone is Not satisfied with my statement,Go ahead and Delete it,Because at the moment I have No time to allocate for searching the detailed Information regarding this Photograph.--MediaJet talk 14:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Similarly if the author is not specified we cannot be certain they were an employee of the British Government. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- I am Very Sure,and Confident that this Photograph is a Work of an employee of the Government of Ceylon,though I cannot Prove it,If anyone is Not satisfied with my statement,Go ahead and Delete it,Because at the moment I have No time to allocate for searching the detailed Information regarding this Photograph.--MediaJet talk 14:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Similarly if the author is not specified we cannot be certain they were an employee of the British Government. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete this--MediaJet talk 14:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Uploaded Under the 4th Statement
- Anonymous works: 70 years from the date on which the work was first published.--MediaJet talk 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know that the work is anonymous? Can you prove that? Anonymous is not the same as unknown.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Uploaded Under the 4th Statement
- Anonymous works: 70 years from the date on which the work was first published.--MediaJet talk 14:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know that the work is anonymous? Can you prove that? Anonymous is not the same as unknown.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete this.--MediaJet talk 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Uploaded Under the 4th Statement
- Anonymous works: 70 years from the date on which the work was first published.--MediaJet talk 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know that the work is anonymous? Can you prove that? Anonymous is not the same as unknown.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If the author is unknown we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Uploaded Under the 4th Statement
- Anonymous works: 70 years from the date on which the work was first published.--MediaJet talk 13:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- How do you know that the work is anonymous? Can you prove that? Anonymous is not the same as unknown.--Obi2canibe (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Pictures taken in British India (prior independence) are PD 50 years after creation. Yann (talk) 10:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Redudant; superseded by later version; not used anywhere else; updloaded by me Sandbh (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Redudant; superseded by later version; not used anywhere else; updloaded by me Sandbh (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Redudant; superseded by later version; not used anywhere else apart from User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users/2013 December 23 00:00; uploaded by me Sandbh (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
sexual content Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 11:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope image, by a banned sockpuppet. Most likely based on a copyrighted image. Nymf (talk) 12:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text-only image which should be replace with wiki-table. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I created this svg, but it does not render correctly, so I uploaded a png version instead DancingPhilosopher (t/p) 14:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
_(869802155).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(869802155).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent work and thereby still under copyright of the artist. Regrettably, there is no Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States for such works. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
_(869802155).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
_(869802155).jpg){kind=link}
replaced by Prinzenbau, 24.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyviol: gmaps screenshot Ciaurlec (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
replaced by a new version drawn according to government website Antemister (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep SVG is different. Fry1989 eh? 01:30, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I started the DR because it is heavily different from the new version. And only the new version is based on an official source Antemister (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 16:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 24.134.38.123 15:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
non notable person using commons as repository. deleted at home wiki. OTAVIO1981 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
File:Joseph Michael Graceffa (AKA Joey Graceffa) (Born May 16, 1991) is a 22 year old vlogger, gamer, parody maker, singer, and model- He and good friend Brittany Joyal are known for their parody channel "WinterSpr 2013-08-27 21-41.jpg
[edit]_(Born_May_16,_1991)_is_a_22_year_old_vlogger,_gamer,_parody_maker,_singer,_and_model-_He_and_good_friend_Brittany_Joyal_are_known_for_their_parody_channel_%22WinterSpr_2013-08-27_21-41.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Born_May_16,_1991)_is_a_22_year_old_vlogger,_gamer,_parody_maker,_singer,_and_model-_He_and_good_friend_Brittany_Joyal_are_known_for_their_parody_channel_%22WinterSpr_2013-08-27_21-41.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Possible copyvio or out of project scope. Jespinos (talk) 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
apparent copyvio, no exif data, google images showed a matching image at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08I73AWakEE ; appears to be a cropped screenshot of said video Cloudz679 (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
It appears to be a screenshot of a television programme. Jespinos (talk) 16:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:TOYS. Jespinos (talk) 16:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused. Sreejith K (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: imho non-free content, please see weblink, Krd 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence presented why this file is not okey Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Malaysia has 50 p.m.a., still copyrighted in the country A1Cafel (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: imho non-free content, please see weblink, Krd 17:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence presented why this file is not okey Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Roland zh as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: imho non-free content, please see weblink, Krd 17:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence presented why this file is not okey Natuur12 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
The information-template says that the subject is also the author of the picture. But the pd-tag says that David34 is the author of the picture. So it's a confusing situation that needs to be fixed, or the file must be deleted. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
False claim of ownership. Image is not "own work" Original at http://www.gangsorus.com/folks_people_nations.htm Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
False claim of ownership. Image can be found here: http://www.nwgangs.com/gang-identification.html among other places Niteshift36 (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
copyvio of 2d artwork not covered by fop in the UK and possible text copyvio Oxyman (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not the COA of Saarlouis - correct file is File:DEU Saarlouis COA.svg refered to Stadtwappen Juergenk59 (talk) 20:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Clouds (in wrong colours), sun and fleurs-de-lis totally random, no mural crown, no crest, no laurel wreath, no real source. Just a loveless "look alike" after own taste as the author admit in file description "eigenes Design" (=own design). Furthermore File:DEU Saarlouis COA.svg shows correct Coat of Arms of City of Saarlouis. So I do not see why to keep it at commons. Fränsmer (talk) 18:46, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; used for image-vandalism on :en[1]. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
it's a picture of a groupie ok deal ~sadshonen~
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
it is my image and donot want it on wikimedia Lincedmedia (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
_prototype.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_prototype.gif&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Jarekt as no license. Uploader added several licenses afterwards, which all does IMHO not apply for this image. JuTa 20:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
_prototype.gif){kind=link}
Kept: Okey Natuur12 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
_prototype.gif){kind=link}
_prototype.gif&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Previous closure IMO was in error. This is a copyrighted photo, not an act of legislature, judgement, court order, etc. {{PD-India-Gov}} does not apply. Delete. Lupo 11:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 09:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that a comics exhibition would be a permanent fixture of a museum. Thus I suspect this fails the "permanently situated" requirement for FOP. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
EXIF data suggests that uploader is not the copyright holder of the image. Jespinos (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution and missing EXIF. Unlikely to be own work. Jespinos (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
loooks like a photo from a photo 24.134.38.123 14:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
useless without a descriptio 24.134.38.123 15:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Promo shot, needs a permission. Yann (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description 24.134.38.123 15:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
File needs an OTRS ticket. (TinEye has found 38 copies) 24.134.38.123 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Uploader is not the author 24.134.38.123 15:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
We request that this photo please be removed and/or replaced with a new photo of Janine Turner. Luludee23 (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Who is 'we'? Why should we do this without proper replacement image? --Denniss (talk) 23:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment: The image passed review and does not portray the subject in a negative light, I think. Just my opinion. --Leoboudv (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Didym (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a " work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" as claimed on the file description page . Martin H. (talk) 13:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Chicago Tribune differs with you above and cites the Court as the source. [2]. Caption under the photo in the trib is "( 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals )." Description is "Catherine Conrad is shown in a banana suit in a photo provided by the 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals." The picture was prepared as part of the official ruling by judges employed by the U.S. It is therefore a "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties". The Chicago Tribune's attribution of the Court for the source confirms it. Page 2 of the ruling [3] has the photo and indicates it "Here is a still photo, which is in the record, of her performing in her costume." Assembling the public record of evidence into a decision is a " work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties." Finally, the actual legal decision was against a copyright claim by the depicted person. --DHeyward (talk) 08:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I dont think that bad citation praxis by the press is a good guide. You even know yourself that the citation is wrong. The court decision says that it is a screenshot. So I agree. The work to create a screenshot is executed by an employee and free from copyright, the content of the screenshot however is protected by copyright and used in this judical document under fair use ("reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports", see notes at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107). We can not host fair use content on Commons, and the PD part of this screenshot - the making of the screenshot - is pretty useless without the reproduced content. --Martin H. (talk) 17:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Content of screenshot is not rendered free by being included in a court case. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
svg available, completely replaced Antemister (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Unused smaller duplicate with too much border of File:Wappen Ensdorf big.svg Fränsmer (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:43ldr + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by LDR43 (most likely sock of LDR43 (talk · contribs)) + User talk:LDR43). Both users uploading "all they can get" concerning files related to an association of football fans of Brazilian São Paulo Futebol Clube.
- File:Dragões da Real (4).jpg
- File:Dragões da Real (20).jpg
- File:Dragões da Real (9).jpg
- File:Dragões da Real (22).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
although this flag looks nice, it is in fact a heavily incoorrect depiction. Compare with the sources and the new version by Sodacan. Antemister (talk) 09:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This file is historically inaccurate and is completely different from the source it gives in it's own description. It had been here long enough and had mislead enough people, once it's been replaced in all the project it should be deleted as soon as possible. Sodacan (talk) 13:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per my disputed Coat of Arms tag. This should be mass-replaced, really. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 14:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep => Personal feelings aside (I did tried my best to make it close as possible to the original), I support keeping this file, BUT ON THE OTHER HAND replacing it with the new version, because, because, even if it is an incorrect depiction. it is still no reason for deleting. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Oren neu dag, you first wrote Delete => Personal feelings aside (I did tried my best to make it close as possible to the original), I support deleting this file and replacing it with the new version, because, as stated above, this is an incorrect depiction. --Oren neu dag (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC), but then changing it to the answer above, why?--Antemister (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Antemister, I believe that the innacuracy in this depiction is a result of my low graphic editing capabilities, but even so, it should not be a reason for deleting. --Oren neu dag (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Should the file remain the incorrect/fictional flag template and at least a name change needs to be considered. I understand the wish for the file to remain, but it is important that we are honest about our sources and serious about our historical research, otherwise we are doing all readers of Wikipedia a disservice. This is not about sentiment but historical accuracy, I take this issue very seriously. If some of the changes I propose is accepted then I am willing to change my mind. Sodacan (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Sodacan, i accept that if this file is to remain, than its name should change to make it clear that this is not the most accurate depiction of the royal standard, yet still, mention that it was my best at creating such a depiction. --Oren neu dag (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a question of skills or graphic editing, no draughtsmanship was involved, only a copy and paste button. This is a question of the misrepresentation of the sources. Historical accuracy was clearly not a priority here but convenience, flags do not have blazons and so the comparisons to coats of arms is moot. We are uploading images for an encyclopaedia, at least that is what I am doing, and we should becareful what we pass off fact and what is fiction. Keep it if you must, but let's not kid anybody, anything less than a fictional tag will not do. Please do not mislead people into thinking this file was based on anything but wishful thinking. Sodacan (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Sodacan, i accept that if this file is to remain, than its name should change to make it clear that this is not the most accurate depiction of the royal standard, yet still, mention that it was my best at creating such a depiction. --Oren neu dag (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @Oren neu dag, you first wrote
- Keep I feel we should keep his work. It is very nice. Well done. During the Kingdom of France, when the King sent his troops to battle, the enemy would often laugh at the sight of the two baby angels on the French flag. Keep it in another name if you have too, but please don't delete his work.--Varing (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Commons is not a webspace provider, where you can upload images that just do look nice, but one where images with an educational purpose are kept. Therefore, an image that is historically inaccurate and misleading, is out of scope here.--Antemister (talk) 11:03, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
break
[edit]
There has been many instances of people creating a depiction of a flag or coat of arms which resulted in varying degrees of quality image, that were a result of their varying skills in graphic editing (for example: the many many many versions of the British Coat of arms ), yet even though there is a large number of depictions of the same royal standard/Arms, nobody wants to delete the ones that were made by users with lesser graphic skills! and in light of that I propose to keep this file in WikiCommons, but add the template {{Superseded}} to the file. --Oren neu dag (talk) 09:35, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- The difference is that those aren't inaccurate. Some of them may be somewhat crude, but they do not misrepresent the coat of arms. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect to the new vector version of the Royal Standard of the Kingdom of France, I find that it is not accurate. If you look at just one of the French sites that sell the Royal Standard in France, you will see that the Fleurs de Lys are not lined up right and that the angels are different. Have a look: http://www.flagsonline.it/asp/drapeau.asp/drapeau_royaume%20de%20france%201632/royaume%20de%20france%201632.html--Iberville (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- That link is another vector recreation. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 08:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- @user:Adelbrecht - With all due respect my vector is as accurate as my graphic editing skills allow it to be:
- It does have a Fleur de lys strewn all over the background,
- It does contain a shield with three golden fleur de lys on a dark blue background,
- It does contain the heraldic orders of St' Michael, and of the Holy Spirit,
- And last but not least, it does have the angels as supporters to the shield.
- So on the surface of it, My depiction is quite accurate, but the only problem with is that it's not 100% accurate, which is why I stated above that i'm in favor of superseding my vector image with another and better vector image. --Oren neu dag (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's a paste of File:Royal Coat of Arms of France.svg on File:Pavillon royal de France.svg. I don't see what it would add even as a fictional-tagged and namechanged flag. You've created other files that actually illustrate your skill. That said, this being the best you could do isn't an argument for keeping it. There's a difference between angels and putti/cherubs, and the crown is still wrongly coloured. It's not an accurate depiction of the sources, yet the description misleadingly claims so. That's the issue. It's redundant, misleading and out of scope. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- In heraldry metals are not allowed to overlap with metals, which does happen in the file made by Sodacan (crown overlaps one of the fleur de lys and at the bottom the medal overlaps with one of the fleur de lys) and not in the here disputed file... so this file is more correct. Dqfn13 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's a paste of File:Royal Coat of Arms of France.svg on File:Pavillon royal de France.svg. I don't see what it would add even as a fictional-tagged and namechanged flag. You've created other files that actually illustrate your skill. That said, this being the best you could do isn't an argument for keeping it. There's a difference between angels and putti/cherubs, and the crown is still wrongly coloured. It's not an accurate depiction of the sources, yet the description misleadingly claims so. That's the issue. It's redundant, misleading and out of scope. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- With all due respect to the new vector version of the Royal Standard of the Kingdom of France, I find that it is not accurate. If you look at just one of the French sites that sell the Royal Standard in France, you will see that the Fleurs de Lys are not lined up right and that the angels are different. Have a look: http://www.flagsonline.it/asp/drapeau.asp/drapeau_royaume%20de%20france%201632/royaume%20de%20france%201632.html--Iberville (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
kept: First of all, this file is still in use and it is not up to commons to decide which version the local wiki's use. There are no sources given by the persons who want this files deleted. When I look at Sodacans version I see the medal overlapsing with the fleur de lys and correct me if I'm wrong but according to Raadselwapen this is inaccurate. Metal may not overlaps with other metal. This article is written by someone who knows a lot about this subject. So please, let the local projects decide which versions they want to use as per Commons:NPOV. I see way to many different opinions here to just assume that this file is wrong. Natuur12 (talk) 12:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by André Dupont (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Alejandro Facto en el Museo Quimbaya.jpg
- File:Alejandro Facto durante un rodaje.jpg
- File:Alejandro Facto.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Radeče train station
[edit]Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture from 2010.
Eleassar (t/p) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Just a stand at a railway station. Yann (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ankita Hazra (talk · contribs)
[edit]All small size images, looks like copyvios from other sources. One example: File:ANCIENT_FORT,KARIMNAGAR.jpg can be found in greater resolution here: [4]
- File:Santinatha temple-khajuraho.gif
- File:BADSHAHI HAVELI,AJMER.jpg
- File:WALLS OF OLD CITY OF TUGHLAQABD,BADARPUR JAIL,DELHI.jpg
- File:TOMB OF BAHU-BEGUM,FAIZABAD.jpg
- File:Three buddhist images,cuttack.jpg
- File:THE PEAK OF NANDA DEVI,ALMORA.jpg
- File:TEMPLE OF SANAMAHI,IMPHAL WEST.jpg
- File:SOMNATH Temple,puri JPG.JPG
- File:Ruins of the Chanderi Fort, Ashoknagar, Madhya Pradesh.jpg
- File:RUINS OF COPPER TEMPLE,WEST KAMENG ARUNACHAL PRADESH.jpg
- File:Rock cut jain temple,pudukkottai.jpg
- File:NANDA DEVI,ALMORA.jpg
- File:JAGANNATH TEMPLE.jpg
- File:DIWAN KHANA,SANGRUR,PUNJAB.jpg
- File:Temple of Dharmaraj,Birbhum.jpg
- File:Chamkati masjid,malda.jpg
- File:BADRINATH TEMPLE,BADRINATH.jpg
- File:ANCIENT FORT,KARIMNAGAR.jpg
Avron (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AlexBatalllaES (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, unused personal images.
Jespinos (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 10:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be a recent and thereby copyrighted sculpture. Regrettably, Lithuania has no freedom-of-panorama exception for public works. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This sculpture is at school, in public place. --Pagulbi74 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Same problem with:
- This is at Street, in public place. --Pagulbi74 (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I mentioned already that Lithuania has NO exception for works in public places. --Túrelio (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- "File:Jonava, medis.JPG" is a not art work; there is x 20 "works", decoration at Street, not a art sculpture. --Pagulbi74 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a question of opinion. However, in most countries this would be considered as work of art. --Túrelio (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- "File:Jonava, medis.JPG" is a not art work; there is x 20 "works", decoration at Street, not a art sculpture. --Pagulbi74 (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I mentioned already that Lithuania has NO exception for works in public places. --Túrelio (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
See Law act...
Architecture and sculpture works copyright restriction
[edit]
- Article 28. Architecture and sculpture works copyright restriction
- First addition to the author of this work or any other owner of copyright, permission, and without compensation, but acknowledged, if possible, the source and the name of the author
Autorių teisių ir gretutinių teisių įstatymas (Law act of Lithuania). --Pagulbi74 (talk) 16:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- If you think "our" current position Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Lithuania is wrong, then you should discuss this at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama, neither here nor on my talkpage. Or did you eventually overlook the restriction "but they cannot be used commercially in any form"? --Túrelio (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- This (Article 28) allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places, by "File:Jonavos Jeronimo Ralio skulptūra.JPG": work of architecture that are permanently located in public places! --Pagulbi74 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again: does Lt law allow the use of such photos without any restrictions, i.e. also for commercial purposes? --Túrelio (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- This (Article 28) allows a photographer to make and publish pictures of sculptures and works of architecture that are permanently located in public places, by "File:Jonavos Jeronimo Ralio skulptūra.JPG": work of architecture that are permanently located in public places! --Pagulbi74 (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: According to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Lithuania the FOP exception doesn't cover comercialy use as Commons policy's require. Natuur12 (talk) 12:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Calling at London (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative work from modern art. Most likely temporary installed to fall under Commons:Freedom of panorama in country of origin.
- File:'Arripare', Gayle Chong Kwan, 2013.jpg
- File:'Wastescape', Gayle Chong Kwan.jpg
- File:'Babel', 'Cockaigne', Gayle Chong Kwan, 2004.jpg
- File:'Core', Gayle Chong Kwan (2007).jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Restored: per OTRS: ticket:2014052310015156 Ankry (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Safarie 2.jpg
- File:Bord de Mer.jpg
- File:Escalade.jpg
- File:Safarie.jpg
- File:MNFT.jpg
- File:Population.png
- File:Flament rose.png
- File:The Webmaster.jpg
- File:Toliara Museum.png
- File:Madagascar New Found Travel.png
- File:Magnum isalo.png
Jespinos (talk) 17:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bazooka Mandarine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of logos and posters. I think band management permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of these files are largely outside the project scope of Wikimedia Commons: some of them are low quality, most do not even have a proper description to glean contextual educational information, and a few are potential copyright violations (e.g. File:Videojuegos.jpg, File:Angelissima.jpg). But all in all, I do not think Commons will miss most of these photographs; this is not a private photo gallery.
- File:Cachorros napolitanos.jpg
- File:Un hogar alternativo.jpg
- File:Angelissima.jpg
- File:Navegando por el mar.jpg
- File:Un amanecer.jpg
- File:Dia de muertoss.jpg
- File:Buen viaje mexicano.JPG
- File:Despejando el área.JPG
- File:Bellas artes hoy.JPG
- File:Y el cambio?.JPG
- File:Conviviendo con la realidad.JPG
- File:Sigue caminando.JPG
- File:Revolucion iluminado.JPG
- File:Alianza de ferrocarrileros.JPG
- File:Listos para la marcha.JPG
- File:Teather Hidalgo.JPG
- File:Altura de Bellas artes.JPG
- File:La invasión gris.JPG
- File:Pinta, pinta.JPG
- File:2 de noviembre CCH.JPG
- File:Botero, caballo.JPG
- File:Viejo pasado.JPG
- File:L'amour par le Pâtissier.JPG
- File:Vasija griega.JPG
- File:Pastel con frutas.JPG
- File:Caminata por la tarde.JPG
- File:Reposteria Internacional.JPG
- File:Detalles de cultura.JPG
- File:Armonia entre la naturaleza.JPG
- File:Los bigotes de C.U.JPG
- File:Museo de Tolerancia.JPG
- File:Mayor casa de estudios.JPG
- File:Evidencia bizarra.JPG
- File:Creacion de primavera.JPG
- File:Los Sir..JPG
- File:Sir. Paul.JPG
- File:Presencia del gobierno.JPG
- File:Reinventando.JPG
- File:Primer rayo de luz.JPG
- File:Imaginacion en accion.JPG
- File:Ecologia?.JPG
- File:Adios dia.JPG
- File:Tarde en Primavera.JPG
- File:Realidad inversa.JPG
- File:Tercera dimension.JPG
- File:AAngel de la independencia.JPG
- File:Guardianes de la luz.jpg
- File:Tranquilidad solitaria.jpg
- File:Sweet dream friend.jpg
- File:Estatuilla.jpg
- File:Resplandor del verde.jpg
- File:Bienvenidos.jpg
- File:Camino de luz.jpg
- File:Voladores.jpg
- File:La realidad absorbida por la fantasía.jpg
- File:Paso a paso.jpg
- File:Nueva vida.jpg
- File:Mas alla.jpg
- File:Los voladores de papantla.jpg
- File:México pictorico.jpg
- File:Un día mas.jpg
- File:TierrAdentro.jpg
- File:Tour nocturno.jpg
- File:Pasajera niñez.jpg
- File:Paseo por la avenida.jpg
- File:Vieja infancia.jpg
- File:Tours.jpg
- File:Nueva época de renacimiento.jpg
- File:Enfoque.jpg
- File:Viaje por lancha.jpg
- File:Observación Minuciosa.jpg
- File:Visita Chiapas.jpg
- File:Pozol.jpg
- File:2 dimensiones.jpg
- File:Conviviendo con la naturaleza.jpg
- File:Pequeños amigos.jpg
- File:Movimiento en Zocalo.jpg
- File:El nuevo comienzo.jpg
- File:Small trace.jpg
- File:Vieja cerradura.jpg
- File:Soledad en Corzo.jpg
- File:Tarde de transito.jpg
- File:Disfruta Tuxtla.jpg
- File:El cañon del Sumidero.jpg
- File:Vespertino jalisco.jpg
- File:Hambre.jpg
- File:Los arcos, Zapopan.jpg
- File:San cristobal de las Casas.jpg
- File:Tidaá.jpg
- File:San pedro Oaxaca.jpg
- File:San pedro tidaá.jpg
- File:LLegando a la meta.jpg
- File:Proximo a llegar.jpg
- File:Vuela vuela.jpg
- File:Tuxtla Gutierrez.jpg
- File:Catedral de San Marcos, Tuxtla.jpg
- File:Amor everywhere.jpg
- File:Chichen itza.jpg
- File:Cancun restaurante.jpg
- File:The Beatles mini.jpg
- File:Primeras luces.jpg
- File:Diferente amanecer.jpg
- File:Gato Americano.jpg
- File:Aburrimiento.jpg
- File:Videojuegos.jpg
- File:La naturaleza nos invade.jpg
- File:Alegrije.jpg
- File:Alegria de convivir.jpg
- File:American Piant Horse.JPG
- File:Caballos Overo.JPG
- File:Caballo Tobiano.JPG
- File:Callistemon Citrinus.JPG
- File:Caballos pintos cuarto de milla.JPG
- File:Arbol del cepillo.JPG
TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mikehistory (talk · contribs)
[edit]Mel Blanc was an Actor and Speaker - he can not give art work under a free licence (even he was dying before such licenses were common)
Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
No use in an educational way imaginable, simple bad quality exhebitionistical penis spam we have here every day a lot.We don't need such terrible bad images. Quality, posture, background - nothing works, everything only cried aout loud "look at my penis!" But for exhebitionists there are other palces in the Internet. Not Wikimedia Commons.
Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bakha.abed (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE --
Steinsplitter (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
clearly stolen from the internet
Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations. Martin H. (talk) 12:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Roberto.suarez84 (talk · contribs)
[edit]There's already a list of copyvios. I doubt the own work claim here as well.
- File:EUROSPORT - All Kyokushin World Tournament.jpg
- File:Quarterfinal - Rati Tsiteladze VS Alexander Erokhin.jpg
- File:Captain Of Georgian Team Rati Tsiteladze.jpg
- File:Internationa Shinkyokushin Championship (Holland).jpg
- File:Rati Tsiteladze 2008 - With World Champions Belt.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Veronica alejandra castillo cuevas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:Bobjezz2.jpg
- File:Shakhsiye aw ghenniye.jpg
- File:Heik menghani.jpg
- File:Many looks.jpg
- File:Jezz NRJ.jpg
- File:Jezz at NRJ music tour with Lexter.jpg
- File:Nrj general view.jpg
- File:President africa bday.jpg
- File:Controversial.jpg
- File:Ayman zbib.jpg
- File:Josiane el zir Award.jpg
- File:Bil bahr sawa.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvios.
Jespinos (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sha3erh0maniah (talk · contribs)
[edit]There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
- File:الشاعرة هاجر البريكي 2014-02-19 08-37.jpeg
- File:الشاعرة هاجر البريكي-برنامج أمير الشعراء 2014-02-19 08-32.jpeg
- File:ديوان الشاعرة هاجر البريكي "مسير"-عن دار اﻹنتشار العربي ( بيروت ) 2014-02-19 08-30.gif
_2014-02-19_08-30.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Jespinos (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La anonima del world! (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Final 2014.jpg
- File:Nuevo grupo..jpg
- File:Candela y Agustina.jpg
- File:Grupo de Amistad Nuevo.jpg
- File:El grupo se agranda..jpg
- File:Sathya,Aymara y Agustina..jpg
- File:Aymara y Agustina.jpg
- File:Sathya y Agustina.jpg
- File:Agustina ocaño y Sus Amigas de colegio.jpg
- File:Agustina Ocaño y Su Mejor Amiga.jpg
- File:Primos y Agustna Ocaño.jpg
- File:Agustina Ocaño a Sus Años.jpg
- File:Crecimiento de Agus Ocaño.jpg
- File:Agus Ocaño de pequeña.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Collection of promo photos and logo. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Little Kids Rock logo.jpg
- File:300 Guitars.jpg
- File:Slash hangs out with Little Kids Rock Students.jpg
- File:Modern Band.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment* All of those photos are posted publicly on Little Kids Rock's website or flickr account.
http://www.littlekidsrock.org/friends/our-big-fans/slash/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/36973804@N06/13903077346/
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:26, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Artical 55 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Doubt own work. All other uploads (c) vios
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danielperiodista (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo materials. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Marisol suarez.jpg
- File:Deco1234rf.jpg
- File:Logorose1.jpg
- File:Alejandro londoño 2010.jpg
- File:Alejandro londoño con algunas de sus modelos.jpg
- File:Alejandro londoño en sus inicios.jpg
- File:Alejandro londoño.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 06:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status + unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Both files uploaded in 09.2013 by ای تی (talk · contribs) (no SUL). File:شاهین.jpg is cropped from http://axgig.com/images/99725264835251517738.jpg (which contains watermarks, most likely from the original photographer) and is (before upload date) in use in parts via (example) http://n-mousavi.com/?page_id=44 = http://n-mousavi.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/head..2.jpg (last modified: 07.2013). File:حاجی.jpg most likely cropped from (example) yjc.ir = http://cdn.yjc.ir/files/fa/news/1391/12/17/898931_690.jpg (last modified: 03.2013)
Gunnex (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: if it is own work, we need OTRS Ymblanter (talk) 21:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuel Francisco Gonzalez (talk · contribs)
[edit]There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images.
Jespinos (talk) 15:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no evidence that uploader is the copyright holder of the images. Uploader has history of copyvios.
- File:Ingreso al estadio.jpg
- File:Estadio Brigadier López.jpg
- File:Panorámica del estadio.jpg
- File:Remodelaciones del 2010.jpg
- File:Estadio en 1965.jpg
Jespinos (talk) 15:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KazekageTR (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely false claims of authorship: File:Turkish M60T parade.jpg was previously published on [5], File:Turkish soldier 2013.jpg on [6]. The camo patters also are likely copyvios given that File:Turkish Pattern2.png clearly comes from [7].
Also, I could not find any evidence that files like File:Jandarma Ozel Asayis 1.jpg or File:Kilic Arslan I.jpg really are in public domain as claimed.
- File:Turkish M60T parade.jpg
- File:Turkish soldier 2013.jpg
- File:Turkish Pattern 3.jpg
- File:Turkish Pattern 1.jpg
- File:Turkish Woodland.jpg
- File:Duck Hunter.jpg
- File:Agean Spot.jpg
- File:TAF camouflage.jpg
- File:Turkish Pattern2.png
- File:Kilic Arslan I.jpg
- File:Chapullers and TOMA.jpg
- File:Jandarma Ozel Asayis 1.jpg
- File:Ozel harekat logo.png
- File:Polis özel harekat.jpg
- File:Turkish commandos 2.jpg
- File:Turkish commandos 1.jpg
- File:Turkish Army Personnel .jpg
Underlying lk (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You are totally wrong. First of all i've or various users on internet uploaded those (File:Turkish soldier 2013.jpg on [8]. File:Turkish Pattern2.png on [9].) pictures to various internet websites and I'm saying that they are my work because i've cropped them, edited or etc. them. Those statements for all of the pictures above except File:Turkish soldier 2013.jpg -a friend e-mailed me that by the way- are true. For example File:Chapullers and TOMA.jpg this picture directly comes from my flickr account, or these camos
- File:Turkish Pattern 3.jpg
- File:Turkish Pattern 1.jpg
- File:Turkish Woodland.jpg
- File:Duck Hunter.jpg
- File:Agean Spot.jpg
- File:TAF camouflage.jpg
- File:Turkish Pattern2.png are shopped and cropped by me. Or those
- File:Polis özel harekat.jpg
- File:Turkish commandos 2.jpg
- File:Turkish commandos 1.jpg
- File:Jandarma Ozel Asayis 1.jpg pictures are published by Anadolu Ajansı the governments news agency. Or those
- File:Turkish Army Personnel .jpg
- File:Ozel harekat logo.png are published directly by governmental organizations of Turkey. Which permits anyone to use their work with their mention in Author title.
There is one picture (File:Kilic Arslan I.jpg) that i cannot find any license to apply on. But it was published on a website which doesnt claim any license issues. It would have been nice if you message me from my English wiki account instead that one. KazekageTR (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- @KazekageTR: Did you just remove all the discussion notices from these files? Anyway, editing or cropping an image doesn't make you their creator. If you are the creator of File:Chapullers and TOMA.jpg (ie, you took the picture yourself) can you give a link to your Flickr so that an admin can verify? About Anadolu Ajansı, where does it say that their work is freely usable by anyone? A link would be welcome.--Underlying lk (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
There you go [10] and for the anadolu ajansi [11] the place says pictures cant be used except subscribers which my dad is a one. And yes editing or cropping an image does makes me the creator of the 'edited' ones.
- @KazekageTR: The image is not released under a free licence, you need to change it on Flickr to CC-SA or it will be deleted.--Underlying lk (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
OK. I've changed it.
- @KazekageTR: Non-commercial licenses are not accepted, see Template:Noncommercial.--Underlying lk (talk) 21:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
İs it ok now? I'm tired of this shit.
Deleted: One file was retained, reasons for the others are shown on the individual pages. Many copyvios. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
All files related to Iranian Khorasgan Azad University and were uploaded in a row on 04.- 06.03.2013. After today identifying +10 uploads as copyvio (mostly grabbed from http://www.khuisf.ac.ir, Copyright 2010-2011 khuisf.ac.ir All rights reserved, subsites etc.) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif, see details at User talk:Mehrnazar) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. Example: File:Khorasgan Azad University Law & Human Science College.jpg = grabbed from http://www.khuisf.ac.ir/Default_.aspx?Page_=gallery&order=list&lang=2&tempname=template4&sub=27&PageIDF=47&page=2 (2011, Copyright 2010-2011 khuisf.ac.ir All rights reserved.) = http://www.khuisf.ac.ir/ShowPage.aspx?Page_=Gallery&Order=Show&PageID=988&PageIDF=47&backpage=1&Lang=2&Sub=27&tempname=template4 = http://www.khuisf.ac.ir//dorsapax/Data/Sub_27/File/basic-scienceC.jpg (last modified: 2011). File:Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch.jpg (the only file with exif) grabbed & cropped from http://www.payamedanesh.com/news.php?id=1295 = http://www.payamedanesh.com/UserFiles/Image/f400.jpg (last modified: 2011, identical exif). The 1st version (mysteriously watermarked) grabbed somewhere from internet.
- File:Khorasgan University ICT Members.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Agriculture-faculty.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Basic Science College.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Foreign Language & Architecture College.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Law & Human Science College.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Girl Dormitory.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Body Building Saloon.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Architecture College.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Lib2.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Dentistry College.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Reseach Building.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Lab3.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Lib.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Lab2.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Workshop.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University ICT Members.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Standard Server room.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Student Restaurent.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Student.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Lab1.jpg
- File:Khorasgan Azad University Campus.jpg
- File:Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Graduated Students Ceremony.jpg
- File:Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Dentistry Faculty.jpg
- File:Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch Lab.jpg
- File:Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:22, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, likely copyvios too.
Jespinos (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Photographs by Robert Milne
[edit]- File:Queen Victoria with Prince Edward, Prince Albert and Princess Mary of York, Balmoral.jpg
- File:Queen Victoria with Princess Victoria Eugénie of Battenberg, 1897.jpg
- File:Royal family group.jpg
Robert Milne died in 1952. Unless one or more of these works are Crown Copyright, they are protected by copyright until January 1, 2023. —RP88 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- the copyright of photo is scadute of 70 years --95.248.37.12 19:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- 1952 + 70 + 1 = 2023. —RP88 22:26, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete IMHO it's not Crown Copyright, so they're protected till '23. Then we can undelete these photos, if Commons still exists;) I've moved the last file to en-Wiki, this can do too the uploader of the other files. --Ras67 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
duplicate of PNG Antemister (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
a privately created image that is not an official state symbol, thus not in use Antemister (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There's no video in the playlist with CC license. Since they're all licensed under standard YouTube license, the screenshot violates copyright. Niklem (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Насколько я понял, CC лицензия как раз и является основной на YouTube, если иное не оговорено особо. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Увы нет, по умолчанию применяется стандартная несвободная лицензия. --Niklem (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ладно, тогда залью как несвободное изображение. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Как несвободное изображение его тоже нельзя загружать, поскольку можно сделать свободную замену. --Niklem (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Ладно, тогда залью как несвободное изображение. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Увы нет, по умолчанию применяется стандартная несвободная лицензия. --Niklem (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Стандартная лицензия YouTube. п. 8.1 Б:
Согласно этого пункта, "каждому пользователю ... безвозмездную лицензию на ... использование ... Контента и, в частности, права на воспроизведение, распространение, переработку". --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 03:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Тем не менее, стандартная лицензия несовместима с лицензией Creative Commons. --Niklem (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Можете сказать: на чём основана эта точка зрения? И второй вопрос: если заменить на лицензию {CC BY-NC-SA 3.0} — устроит? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- На том, что в данном случае применим не пункт B, а пункт A, относящийся к стандартной лицензии. И лицензия {CC BY-NC-SA 3.0}, конечно, не устроит. --Niklem (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
- Можете сказать: на чём основана эта точка зрения? И второй вопрос: если заменить на лицензию {CC BY-NC-SA 3.0} — устроит? --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
If the author is not specified we can't be certain they died more than 70 years ago, so the image cannot be in PD in Sri Lanka. Obi2canibe (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
There seem to be some problems with the licensing of this image: First, we do have an image which is now ARR on flickr. Second, yes CC licenses are irrevokable but there had never been a valid license review process with this image because FLOMINATOR was the original uploader and FLOMINATOR was the person who says that this file was under different license available. This is an incorrect way to handle this - it must be two different people for doing the upload and the confirmation. As a conclusion, we need CERTAIN evidence that this phot was really available under a free license! 188.104.108.95 07:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- What about this? --Flominator (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
High Contrast and I disagree over the clossing so more opnion's are welcome. For more discussion see [[12]] Natuur12 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Natuur12&oldid=121675157#Commons:Deletion_requests.2FFile:Nirvana_around_1992.jpg){kind=link}
- To me, this edit summary looks like a license review by Platonides. The fact that it's based on Google cache instead on the actual Flickr page shouldn't matter, should it?--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
- Very vague this pseudo license review. Please note that this google link does not work anymore. We need certain evidence for this. --High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter that the link doesn't work. We have license reviews and trusted users to keep notice of licenses when links become unavailable. And "Image is now 'All rights reserved' on flickr, but Cc-by-sa 2.0 is still shown on the Google Cache", as Platonides wrote, is not vague. It's absolutely clear.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Pere prlpz, do not get emotional. Stick to the facts. It does not get better when you repeat your already stated words in different, more aggressive variants. I know what you mean by your Google Cache citation. But this link does not work and User:Platonides was no admin in 2005 nor was he a license reviewer. I personally cannot exclude any falsity.
@Pere prlpz again: if you wanna do something good, then ask the flickr user about a statement about this issue here. This is the best solution for solving this problem. --High Contrast (talk) 00:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)- @High Contrast: It is you who is aggressive now. ;oD I am waiting for others' comments. No need to get emotional. Yann (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your no-need-to-get-emotional-reminder for Pere prlpz. Abrasiveness? Isn't it usually your behaviour ;oD
Thanks for helping here! Do you have any suggestion for solving this problem? What can we do with such issues? --High Contrast (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your no-need-to-get-emotional-reminder for Pere prlpz. Abrasiveness? Isn't it usually your behaviour ;oD
- @High Contrast: It is you who is aggressive now. ;oD I am waiting for others' comments. No need to get emotional. Yann (talk) 03:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
- Pere prlpz, do not get emotional. Stick to the facts. It does not get better when you repeat your already stated words in different, more aggressive variants. I know what you mean by your Google Cache citation. But this link does not work and User:Platonides was no admin in 2005 nor was he a license reviewer. I personally cannot exclude any falsity.
- It doesn't matter that the link doesn't work. We have license reviews and trusted users to keep notice of licenses when links become unavailable. And "Image is now 'All rights reserved' on flickr, but Cc-by-sa 2.0 is still shown on the Google Cache", as Platonides wrote, is not vague. It's absolutely clear.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Very vague this pseudo license review. Please note that this google link does not work anymore. We need certain evidence for this. --High Contrast (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept I agree that Flominator's review of his own upload 18 months after the fact does not follow our rules, even though he is a long term contributor and Admin. However, the Platonides edit summary is clear to me -- the image appeared in the Google cache as stated. Since Platonides is also an Admin, it qualifies as a license review even though he did not actually use the {{Licensereview}} template. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think that at that time the procedure for license change specified somwthing like that, adding {{Flickr-change-of-license}} not {{LicenseReview}} (ok, Template:LicenseReview was created in 2009, it couldn't have stated that).
PS: I don't think the time I was selected an admin really matters regarding the accuracy of my statement, but since it was used as an argument I should point out that at that date I was an admin. Platonides (talk) 00:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
this is not an official roundell, but a private creation. Out of scope Antemister (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 06:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
a privately created image that is not an official state symbol, thus not in use Antemister (talk) 16:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Italy. 84.61.172.74 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep nichts geschütztes auf dem Bild. --Ralf Roleček 19:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- Ra Boe watt?? 21:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Italy.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
w:Francis Owen Salisbury died in 1962. Unless someone wants to argue for Crown Copyright somehow, it seems clearly under copyright. Prosfilaes (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- From the 1911 Copyright Act: Without prejudice to any rights or privileges of the Crown, where any work has, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, been prepared or published by or under the direction or control of His Majesty or any Government department, the copyright in the work shall, subject to any agreement with the author, belong to His Majesty, and in such case shall continue for a period of fifty years from the date of the first publication of the work. It sounds very much to me that a work commissioned by the Crown would have been Crown Copyright in those days. The 1956 act's wording was if anything stronger, and was not relaxed until the 1988 act (Crown employees in the course of their duties), but I'm not sure that would have changed who the copyright owner on existing works would have been. Carl Lindberg (talk) 12:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- What is interesting about this 1936 portrait is that the painter Francis Owen Salisbury wasn't directly commissioned by King George VI or the UK government. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa presented it to King George VI as a gift. What makes this complicated is at the time these four countries were Dominions, and after the Balfour Declaration of 1926 and the 1931 Statute of Westminster the Dominions were autonomous (although theoretically still owing allegiance to the Crown). It's not clear if these four countries bought the painting from Salisbury and gave it to King George, or if they commissioned Salisbury to create it. Assuming they did, in fact, jointly commission Salisbury to create the work it might still be covered by Crown Copyright, albeit in a sort of round-about way. Salisbury published an autobiography in 1944, I will try to get ahold of a copy and see if it can clarify the situation. —RP88 11:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: First, we don't know whether the four Dominions had anything to do with this until after it was created. Second, commissioning a painting would not qualify for the level of control required by "been prepared or published by or under the direction or control" -- artists are notoriously unwilling to be controlled. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of a work of art painted by an artist who died in 1962: PD-Art does not apply and it is not a Crown Copyright work. DrKiernan (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- It might well be considered a Crown Copyright work, if it was initially published by the the crown. In those days, Crown Copyright tended to be fairly expansive, as noted by the definition in the 1911 act (which got even more expansive in the 1956 act, before being toned down in 1988, but that did not change the Crown Copyright status of previous works). But it does sound as though the creation of the painting has some interesting technicalities which can muddy the waters a bit. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- The royal collection does not appear to fall under Crown copyright[13]. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That page doesn't say either way (being under Crown Copyright is still copyrighted). This page indicates it is Crown Copyright. The 1911 definition would appear to include material prepared or published under the control of the King personally in the realm of Crown Copyright; the question is more if it would be considered Crown Copyright under 1936 rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing at that page indicating it is under Crown copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The very bottom says "The Royal Household © Crown Copyright"; the Royal Collection is one of the five departments of the Royal Household apparently. And the collection, trust, etc. did not exist in 1936. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's just the copyright notice for that web page. It has nothing to do with items in the collection. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that is just as true of the first link ;-) It does however indicate that the Royal Household items are considered Crown Copyright, and since the Collection is a department of the Household, that would be the same. I think this line of reasoning is irrelevant though as none of those existed in 1936 and if the painting was Crown Copyright then the status has not changed. To me, it probably rides solely on if there was a special agreement concerning copyright with the artist. That is a distinct possibility, though I haven't seen any indication of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link from the source explicitly says "all elements of the website [including the pictures] are protected by copyright ... no images may be reproduced, communicated to the public, distributed, re-used or extracted from this website for commercial use". The link you provided explicitly says the Collection is a separate charity independent from the government. There is no evidence anywhere saying the image was Crown copyrighted in 1937 - that is entirely an invention of wikimedians. There is, however, a reliable source that the image is copyrighted now since the source of the image says that it is. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, they are protected by copyright... Crown Copyright. That is still a copyright, with the same exact rights -- the only difference is the term. The link says it is a trust, and not under control of the Queen as an individual -- that does not mean it's not part of the government. The website undoubtedly contains lots of legitimately copyrighted works, so a blanket statement like that is fine. It says nothing about the copyright term of any specific item. Anyways, the copyright of the image is not at issue -- while the UK may claim copyright over that, we follow PD-Art, and treat it as a straight copy (without any additional copyright) of the original painting. So, we are concerned solely about the copyright status of the painting itself. There was no Collection, no trust, or whatever in 1937, so those are not relevant to the copyright term of the painting. If the painting was Crown Copyright in 1937, it remained Crown Copyright (subsequent laws did not change that status), and has probably expired regardless of who owns the physical item. If the artist retained copyright, then it has a 70pma term, regardless of who owns the copyright or the physical item now, and any copies should be deleted. So, the question is -- was the painting Crown Copyright in 1937? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. The royal collection is not Crown copyright. It is protected by ordinary copyright. It is independent of the government. Besides, even if it were part of the government, none of Salisbury's work in the government art collection is Crown copyright anyway,[14] so even if you still do not accept that the collection is not a part of the government, then you still have no reason to think that this painting should be any different from any of his other work owned by the government. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- By their own web page: The website and its contents are owned and operated by Royal Collection Trust, part of the Royal Household. The Royal Household is part of the government (site is royal.gov.uk); the Collection Trust would also therefore appear to be part of the government. Their works should seemingly therefore be Crown Copyright. They simply say "protected by copyright"; that does not exclude Crown Copyright.
- Their own copyright statement: Royal Collection Trust / © HM Queen Elizabeth II 2015. If something is authored by the Queen, that is basically by definition Crown Copyright. Perhaps if they accept no public money, which is possible, it could be different. However...
- All of the above is completely irrelevant to the copyright of the painting in question, and of the copyright status of any of the actual items *in* the collection. They retain whatever copyright term they had when they entered the collection. If it was a private copyright, then yes it was a term of 70pma (even if the collection owns the copyright now). The analysis is item-by-item and has nothing to do with what type of copyright works by Trust employees get. Some of the works they own have expired (regardless if they claim copyright on the photos), some are under still-valid private copyright, and some are under Crown Copyright, no doubt. If works were done by Salisbury privately and later given to the government, they would not be Crown Copyright (such as, most likely, the ones that you linked to in the government collection). The question is what is the case with this painting, which was apparently commissioned by four governments (all of which had the exact same Crown Copyright wording in their copyright laws) as a gift to the King (which may then have usurped the copyright if they were the first to really publish it). Crown Copyright was pretty aggressive in those days about taking over copyright. If it was Crown Copyright then, it's Crown Copyright now, as that status never changed. If it was considered a private copyright then, it's a 70pma term and copies of it here should be deleted. That is really the only question. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- The Collection accepts no public money. That is explicitly and clearly stated. 86.191.160.181 17:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. The royal collection is not Crown copyright. It is protected by ordinary copyright. It is independent of the government. Besides, even if it were part of the government, none of Salisbury's work in the government art collection is Crown copyright anyway,[14] so even if you still do not accept that the collection is not a part of the government, then you still have no reason to think that this painting should be any different from any of his other work owned by the government. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- Correct, they are protected by copyright... Crown Copyright. That is still a copyright, with the same exact rights -- the only difference is the term. The link says it is a trust, and not under control of the Queen as an individual -- that does not mean it's not part of the government. The website undoubtedly contains lots of legitimately copyrighted works, so a blanket statement like that is fine. It says nothing about the copyright term of any specific item. Anyways, the copyright of the image is not at issue -- while the UK may claim copyright over that, we follow PD-Art, and treat it as a straight copy (without any additional copyright) of the original painting. So, we are concerned solely about the copyright status of the painting itself. There was no Collection, no trust, or whatever in 1937, so those are not relevant to the copyright term of the painting. If the painting was Crown Copyright in 1937, it remained Crown Copyright (subsequent laws did not change that status), and has probably expired regardless of who owns the physical item. If the artist retained copyright, then it has a 70pma term, regardless of who owns the copyright or the physical item now, and any copies should be deleted. So, the question is -- was the painting Crown Copyright in 1937? Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- The link from the source explicitly says "all elements of the website [including the pictures] are protected by copyright ... no images may be reproduced, communicated to the public, distributed, re-used or extracted from this website for commercial use". The link you provided explicitly says the Collection is a separate charity independent from the government. There is no evidence anywhere saying the image was Crown copyrighted in 1937 - that is entirely an invention of wikimedians. There is, however, a reliable source that the image is copyrighted now since the source of the image says that it is. DrKiernan (talk) 10:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, that is just as true of the first link ;-) It does however indicate that the Royal Household items are considered Crown Copyright, and since the Collection is a department of the Household, that would be the same. I think this line of reasoning is irrelevant though as none of those existed in 1936 and if the painting was Crown Copyright then the status has not changed. To me, it probably rides solely on if there was a special agreement concerning copyright with the artist. That is a distinct possibility, though I haven't seen any indication of that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's just the copyright notice for that web page. It has nothing to do with items in the collection. DrKiernan (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The very bottom says "The Royal Household © Crown Copyright"; the Royal Collection is one of the five departments of the Royal Household apparently. And the collection, trust, etc. did not exist in 1936. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see nothing at that page indicating it is under Crown copyright. DrKiernan (talk) 18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- That page doesn't say either way (being under Crown Copyright is still copyrighted). This page indicates it is Crown Copyright. The 1911 definition would appear to include material prepared or published under the control of the King personally in the realm of Crown Copyright; the question is more if it would be considered Crown Copyright under 1936 rules. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- The royal collection does not appear to fall under Crown copyright[13]. DrKiernan (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete As I understand the history of the work, it clearly was not commissioned by the UK government. Therefore the paragraph in the 1911 UK copyright act quoted above is irrelevant -- the four dominions had their own copyright laws by this time -- Canada in 1921. It may or may not have been commissioned by the four dominions. If it was commissioned, rather than simply purchased, it may or may not be covered by Crown Copyright -- the standard for a Crown Copyright goes beyond what most artists will accept. Given that there are two levels of uncertainty here, I think the PRP applies and we must delete it again.
- I note for the record that this discussion should technically be taking place at an UnDR, because this image is a {{Speedy}}, having been deleted once and not restored through the UnDR process. However, I think we might as well continue it here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please note that the 1911 law also stated that anything *published by* the Crown also became Crown Copyright, regardless of previous authorship. That doesn't happen anymore but it did at the time, and that status remains. Artists should have been aware of that if making a painting intended for the Crown. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I don't understand why you think the 1911 UK law is relevant at all. As I said above, the dominions had their own laws by then -- at least Canada did -- and, assuming that the four dominions did commission the work, which is still unproven, which of the four laws would apply? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well first, all those countries typically had copyright laws based directly on (and pretty much identical to) the 1911 UK Act. Secondly, if it was intended as a gift for the King and the UK Crown was the first to publish it, then the UK Crown may well have usurped the copyright. (And in those days, there really was just the one "Crown", so it may have been Crown Copyright regardless of which country was involved.) It does sound like it is a bit of a muddy situation though. It's just that Crown Copyright of that era was a lot more aggressive/expansive and tended to take over copyrights which were originally private in a lot of situations. But, there certainly could have been an understanding or contract with the painter in this case, which would override anything else. Carl Lindberg (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I don't understand why you think the 1911 UK law is relevant at all. As I said above, the dominions had their own laws by then -- at least Canada did -- and, assuming that the four dominions did commission the work, which is still unproven, which of the four laws would apply? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- This item in the royal collection is not an original. It is a print of the original. I'd be very surprised if someone purchasing or commissioning a print obtains copyright rights from that purchase. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The four dominions gave a print to the King? Forgive me, but I find that hard to understand. Where is the original? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted file identical to the current file? Is there any information in the deleted revisions that tell us the history of the image? I don't see anything at the current source about the provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- DrKiernan, the deleted file was RCIN 407573 and was an image of the original painting, while the current file is RCIN 751205 which is an image of a print of the original painting. —RP88 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Is the deleted file identical to the current file? Is there any information in the deleted revisions that tell us the history of the image? I don't see anything at the current source about the provenance. DrKiernan (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The four dominions gave a print to the King? Forgive me, but I find that hard to understand. Where is the original? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is not important -- the provenance of the image does not really matter. Since WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy, the only question that matters is whether the painting is PD or not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jim, from your indentation I guess that comment is directed to me? If so, I readily and obviously agree that what is relevant to this discussion is the PD status of the original painting and appogize for engendering confusion if my latest comment somehow suggested otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for confusion -- I mostly indent just to make it clear that it's a new comment. Usually that's OK, but, as you say, here it might have been clearer if I had not. It was not really directed at you -- you just answered the question posed by DrKiernan. My point is that his question is moot. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:50, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Jim, from your indentation I guess that comment is directed to me? If so, I readily and obviously agree that what is relevant to this discussion is the PD status of the original painting and appogize for engendering confusion if my latest comment somehow suggested otherwise. —RP88 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The difference is not important -- the provenance of the image does not really matter. Since WMF has adopted Bridgeman as policy, the only question that matters is whether the painting is PD or not. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted Since there is significant uncertainty here and no definitive explanation of why this work by a private artist should have a Crown Copyright, I'm falling back on PRP and deleting it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
collage contains two deleted images that need to be blanked or replaced Denniss (talk) 10:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Info 1 file restored recently per COM:DIU/Commons:Deletion requests/File:Israeli troops in sinai war.jpg from the file history but File:Soviet super test.jpg has gone per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Soviet super test.jpg. Gunnex (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
During last upload this was not own work of the uploader - compare Special:Undelete/File:Jacques_Chevalier.jpg (admin link only). JuTa 17:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gavaskar Theekkathir (talk · contribs)
[edit]There may be one or two real own work images in this collection, most files very likely taken without permission from other photographers, websites, archives. 12 Different cameras plus files without exif show clearly that this is not own work:
- Nikon
- D90
- D60
- D40
- D50
- D70s
- D40x
- D2H
- D300
- *D7000
- Pentax
- *ist DL
- K100 D
- ipad
- File:CPI 32 National Council members.jpg
- File:V.P.Chintdan.jpg
- File:Kanagaraj.jpg
- File:Rita brata Banerjee.jpg
- File:Ritabrata Baner jee.jpg
- File:Ritabrata Banerjee.jpg
- File:Ritabrata Banerjee and Uchi Mahali.jpg
- File:CPI(M) Brigade rally 4.JPG
- File:CPI(M) Brigade rally 2.JPG
- File:CPI(M) Brigade rally 3.JPG
- File:CPI(M) Brigade rally 1.JPG
- File:R.Nallakannu.JPG
- File:CPIM AIADMK Press Meet Feb 3, 2014.jpg
- File:P Jeevanandham Statue.jpg
- File:Chennai ICDS Station Perungudi.jpg
- File:Chennai Electric Train.jpg
- File:Tamilandu Railway.jpg
- File:ICDS.jpg
- File:ICDS Chennai.jpg
- File:R.N. Joe D’ Cruz.png
- File:Joe D’ Cruz.png
- File:AIDWA's 10th National Conference.JPG
- File:AIDWA's 10th National Conference 1.JPG
- File:AIDWA's 10th National Conference 2.JPG
- File:MALINI BHATTACHARYA.jpg
- File:P K Srimathi.jpg
- File:JAGMATI SANGWAN.jpg
- File:November Revolution 96th anniversary 3.jpg
- File:November Revolution 96th anniversary 1.jpg
- File:November Revolution 96th anniversary 2.jpg
- File:November Revolution 96th anniversary 4.jpg
- File:Thangam Thennarasu DMK.JPG
- File:Yusuf Tharikami.jpg
- File:WR.Varadarajan.JPG
- File:W.R.Varadarajan and Prakash Karat.JPG
- File:W.R.Varadarajan.jpg
- File:W.R.Varadarajan and Vaiko.JPG
- File:Venkatesa Aathreya.JPG
- File:Velmurugan.JPG
- File:U.VASUKI CPIM.JPG
- File:U.Vasuki.jpg
- File:Thaban sen.jpg
- File:T.K.Rangarajan CPIM.jpg
- File:T.Pandiyan.jpg
- File:T.K.Rangarajan and Tirumavalavan.JPG
- File:T.K.Rangarajan and K.Chandru.JPG
- File:Surjya Kanta Mishra.JPG
- File:Sugumol sen.jpg
- File:Su.Venkatesan.JPG
- File:Subasni ali.jpg
- File:Sudha sundara raman.jpg
- File:Sitaram Yechury in Public Meeting.jpg
- File:Sitaram Yechury Writting.jpg
- File:Sitaram Yechury and A.K.Padmanaban.jpg
- File:S.KANNAN.jpg
- File:Sitaram Yechury.jpg
- File:Samar Mugarji.jpg
- File:Prakash Karat in Tamilnadu.jpg
- File:S.K.Ponnuthai.JPG
- File:Prakash Karat CPIM General Secretary.jpg
- File:Prakash Karat.jpg
- File:PRAKAS KARAT and D.RAJA.jpg
- File:Prakash Karat and N.Varadarajan.jpg
- File:Prakash Karat and G.Ramakrishnan.jpg
- File:Prakash and Subhasini Ali.jpg
- File:P.Suganthi.jpg
- File:P.R.NATARAJAN.jpg
- File:P.Mohan and Jayalaitha.jpg
- File:P.Mohan.jpg
- File:Niruban chakravarthy.jpg
- File:Niruppam sen.jpg
- File:NAGAI MAALI.jpg
- File:N.Varadarasan.jpg
- File:N.varadarajan Ph.jpg
- File:N.Varadarajan and P.Mohan.jpg
- File:N.Varadarajan and Jayakandan.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraya.jpg
- File:N.Sankaraiya in movement against Black money.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiya and wife.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiya and R.Nallakannu.JPG
- File:N.sankaraiya and M.K.Bande.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah Bruntha Karat.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah G.Ramakrishnan K.Balakrishnan P.R.Natarajan.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah in All India Kisan Sabha All india conference.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah and T.K.Rangarajan.jpg
- File:N.Sankaraiah and A.Soundararajan.JPG
- File:N.Nanmaran.JPG
- File:Movement Against Black money.JPG
- File:N.Amirtham.JPG
- File:Manik Sarkar CPI(M).jpg
- File:M.N.S.Venkataraman and Nandan Maniratnam.JPG
- File:Malathi City Babu.JPG
- File:M.K.Kanimozhi.jpg
- File:M.K.Kanimoli.JPG
- File:M.K.Bande.jpg
- File:M.A.Baby.jpg
- File:LEFT Leaders.jpg
- File:Latha.jpg
- File:LEEMA ROSE.JPG
- File:KANNAN and Prakash Karat.jpg
- File:K.S.kanagaraj.jpg
- File:D.Latha.JPG
- File:K.Varadarajan.jpg
- File:A.Lazar MLA.JPG
- File:Brindaa Karat.JPG
- File:Ramakrishnan.G.JPG
- File:Jothi Lakshmi.JPG
- File:Jyothi Basu P.Ramamurthy B.T.Ranadive.jpg
- File:Jeyakanthan1.JPG
- File:Jeyakanthan.JPG
- File:Jayalalitha.JPG
- File:JANSIRANI.JPG
- File:Janasakthi.JPG
- File:J.Hemachandran.jpg
- File:Hannan Mollah.jpg
- File:G.Ramakrishnan T.K.Rangarajan N.Varadarajan M.K.Stalin.JPG
- File:G.Ramakrishnan W.R.Varadarajan Vaiko N.Varadarajan.JPG
- File:G.Ramakrishnan and K.Balakrishnan.JPG
- File:G.RAMAKIRUSNAN.jpg
- File:DMK Members.JPG
- File:Dilli Babu and Nandan Maniratnam.JPG
- File:DILLI BABU.JPG
- File:CPIM Tamilnadu State Committe Office Old.JPG
- File:CPIM Tamilnadu State Committe Old Office.JPG
- File:CPIM MLA's 20011-2016.JPG
- File:CPIM MLA's 2006-2011.JPG
- File:CPIM Election Campaign.JPG
- File:CPIM DMK Leaders.jpg
- File:CPIM 19th Conference.JPG
- File:CPIM 14th Conference.jpg
- File:Chandra.R.JPG
- File:Budhadeb Battacharya.JPG
- File:Brinda Karat in Conference.jpg
- File:Brinda Karat and N.Varadarajan wife.JPG
- File:Brinda Karat.jpg
- File:Birunda karat.jpg
- File:Biman Basu.jpg
- File:Beem Rao and K.Balakrishnan.JPG
- File:BHARATHIYAR.jpg
- File:Basudev Acharya.jpg
- File:Bala Barathi.K.jpg
- File:BAGATH SINGH.jpg
- File:B.V.Ragavalu.jpg
- File:Arunan and Sitaram yechury.JPG
- File:Anna durai.R.JPG
- File:A.Nallasivan.jpg
- File:A.V.Bellarmin.jpg
- File:A.Arumuga Nainar.JPG
- File:A.K.Padmanabhan.jpg
- File:P.Chidambaram.jpg
- File:K.Kanagaraj CPIM Tamilnadu.jpg
- File:S.Venkatesan Sahitya Akademi Award for Tamil in 2011.jpg
- File:S.Tamilselvan Writer.jpg
- File:Arunan Writer.jpg
- File:CPIM Tamilnadu State Committee Office P.R.Ninaivagam.JPG
- File:CPIM Tamilnadu State Committee Office P.R.Ninaivagam Opening Ceremony.JPG
- File:CPIM Tamilnadu State Committee Office.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah Speech.JPG
- File:Barathi Puthakalayam Branch Opening By Com P.Sampath.JPG
- File:A.Nallasivan Library opening by Com N.Sankaraiah.JPG
- File:A.Nallasivan Library Opening Function.JPG
- File:A.Nallasivan Library.JPG
- File:N.Sankaraiah in A.Nallasivan Library Opening Day.JPG
_Brigade_rally_4.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Brigade_rally_2.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Brigade_rally_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Brigade_rally_1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose mass deletion. I think that it's unlikely that some the older, historical photos were taken by the user himself, they are probably uploads from the Theekathir archives (thus probably with the implicit or explicit approval of the newspaper management). I'm not sure what's the maximum amount of cameras being allowed for usage at Commons, but I'd reckon that a professional photojournalist could use different camera depending on the event. If we compare some of these photos with coverage in Theekathir (such as the 2013 AIDWA conference), we find that 1) they are clearly taken by the same person as the one having taken the photo published in Theekathir and 2) these are photos not found anywhere else online, so the uploader could not have had access to them unless working at Theekathir. Considering that CPI(M) is a cadre party, it's highly unlikely that this would have been uploaded without its consent. Thus I think good faith assumption could prevail for the more recent photos, whilst individual deletion requests could be issued for the older ones. --Soman (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose mass deletion The user being a professional photographer of a newspaper , there is possibility that he can use different camera at different point of time . OPposing the mass deletion in this regard . --Commons sibi (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The multiple camera arguments above don't make sense. With the exception of the D2H, none of the cameras are models that a professional would use. The D40 is an entry level camera, the others are mid-range. As for the assumption that Theekathir has implicitly given its consent, this does not meet our standards, which requires proof beyond a significant doubt that the images are correctly licensed. We assume good faith in the absence of evidence that the assumption is not good. In cases like this, where the uploader claims "own work" when that is clearly not the case, then we no longer assume good faith. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per Jim. Questionable copyright status FASTILY 21:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Another copy of the photo has copyright mark to 20th Century Fox--film was renewed. We hope (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- From copyright.gov:
- Type of Work: Motion Picture
- Registration Number / Date: RE0000453382 / 1989-11-29
- Renewal registration for: LP0000020623 / 1961-09-26
- Title: The Hustler.
- Copyright Claimant: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation & Rossen Enterprises, Inc. (PWH)
- Names: Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation Rossen Enterprises, Inc.
- Comment If deleted, Category:The Hustler (film) should receive an alert derivated from {{PD-US-not renewed}} indicating that "This work is not [yet] in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was renewed." to avoid and/or facilitate further related deletion requests. Gunnex (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Both of these have the same photo number and when you look at the first upload of the file here, it looks like there was no copyright information that may have been cropped at the seller's end. This is long gone from eBay; too bad there's no back uploaded where it could be seen if there was a notice at back or not. We hope (talk) 16:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I do not think that the caption in our image here is original. Other promo photos for this film also are captioned in the style of the picture pointed out by User:We hope, see for instance [15] from this Ebay auction. There's a clear copyright notice, the caption uses a sans-serif font, and reads "20th Century Fox presents PAUL NEWMAN in Robert Rossen's THE HUSTLER..." . Our image here uses a serif font, and the caption reads "A Scene from the Robert Rossen 20th Century Fox Production in CinemaScope...". This reads like a third party caption. And since the image is the only one in Category:The Hustler (film), I think we can just remove the category; too. Lupo 20:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
![[15]](http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTE3MFgxNDk3/z/WLUAAOxyUrZS6ZSe/$_57.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 21:42, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Jespinos (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per FoP-Spain. Located in public space during its whole lifespan.--Coentor (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: COM:FOP#Spain Ezarateesteban 22:08, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
COM:DW not covered by COM:FOP Spain since this is not a work meant to be permanently placed in the street, nor whoever placed it owns the copyrights of the EA/Xbox logos and pictures which are not COM:De minimis either. —MarcoAurelio 11:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Question Does "Temporal installation" in the file description mean "temporary installation"? In English, the opposite of temporal is spiritual, or there's the temporal lobe of the brain behind the temples. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Yes, temporary installation (the opposite of permanent). In Spanish temporary translates to temporal which is the same word for the brain lobe (lóbulo temporal). Temporal is also used to describe bad weather :-) Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 19:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'll make the edit. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, derivative work copyvio, as per nominator. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Ahura21 has uploaded a large number of blatant copyright violations. On their user page, they pretty much openly admit to nicking photographs from photographers including Mahdi Kalhor and Reza Hajipour, both of whose photos are clearly marked "all rights reserved" on Panoramio and which Ahura21 claimed to be their "own work." The user has not responded to the numerous warnings they have received, other than by repeatedly blanking their user talk page and uploading additional copyright violations. The user's uploads were all created with multiple different cameras and multiple different mobile phones. At this point, I find no reason to consider any of their authorship claims to be credible.
- File:Shahbazii.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:تخت جمشید.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parseahur.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse1.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse7.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Parse8.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-20
- File:Eram1001.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-27
- File:Saadi1001.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-03-27
- File:Shirazbarg.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-11-25
File:Qzvin.jpg Nikon 3000 on 2008-11-29, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54993403Relicensed on Panoramio, OK now.- File:Parse5.jpg Nokia N82 on 2008-12-05
- File:Shirazsaadi.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20, appears to be a derivative of a presumably non-free sculpture or wax doll
- File:Shirazzinat.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shirazinat.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shirazayene.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-02-20
- File:Shzhotel.jpg Sony DSC-W55 on 2009-03-25
- File:Ghaledokhtar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Ghaledokhtaar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Firozahur.jpg Nokia N82 2009-04-24
- File:Kakhardshir.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Firozabadkakh.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-04-24
- File:Persianchild.jpg Nokia N78 on 2009-05-01
- File:Margahur.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 2009-07-01
- File:Margahur1.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 on 2009-07-01
- File:Margahur2.jpg Samsung Techwin NV 7 on 2009-07-01
- File:Arashkamngir.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-07-05 - Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parsahur.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-07-17
- File:Parsahur2.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-07-17
- File:Sadabad5.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-09-05
- File:Sadabad9.jpg Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 on 2009-09-05
- File:سینما سعدی.jpg Sony Ericsson P1i on 2010-07-23, appeared on http://www.shiraz1400.com/2010/07/blog-post_24.html one year before it was uploaded here
- File:Chenar.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad1.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad2.jpg Nokia N82 on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad3.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad4.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad6.jpg Sony Ericsson W810i on 2009-11-26
- File:Sadabad8.jpg Canon PowerShot S5 IS on 2009-11-26
- File:Araashk.jpg Canon PowerShot S5 IS on 2009-11-26 - Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parse.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-02-19
- File:Persepolispic.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-02-19
- File:Parse3.jpg Nokia N82 on 2010-10-27
- File:Hafezahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-13
- File:Eramahurr.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:Eramshiraz.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:باغ ارم.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:Erama.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-20
- File:حافظیه.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-01-26
- File:حافظه.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-03-14
- File:Kavir.semnan.jpg Canon PowerShot A2100 IS on 2011-03-23, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54183581
- File:Parse4.jpg Sony DSC-W350 on 2011-03-25
- File:A-yardang .jpg Canon PowerShot A2100 IS on 2011-04-02, taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/55228074
- File:Shzahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shirazahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shzahur2.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Shazahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahurr.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eramahur2.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahur3.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram ahur 4.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eramahur.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Eram1.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-04-13
- File:Kafshroshan.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
- File:Cinemashz.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
- File:Cinemapersia.jpg HTC Desire on 2011-07-23
File:Dasht-mishan.jpg Nikon D3000 on 2088-04-09 (sic!), taken from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/56726284Relicensed on Panoramio, OK now.- File:200million-comparison-final.jpg – appeared on http://www.clicktoexit.com/journal/tag/stats two days before it was uploaded here
- File:Mcdo.jpg – scaled-down duplicate of File:Albert Einstein at the age of three (1882).jpg with false authorship claims
- File:Spnua.jpg
- File:Spnus.jpg
- File:Spnuf.jpg
- File:Milaad1.jpg See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Sadabad7.jpg Needs more information about it's creator(s) and owner. See COM:FOP#Iran
- File:Parse6.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! with multiple different cameras, see DATE different @ah0ra (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- (I moved the above comment here from Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Ahura21.)
- I added the dates and the cameras used above. It doesn't exactly make it more convincing that these photos are all your own work.
- You supposedly used a Nikon 3000 DSLR in November of 2008 and then switched to a Sony DSC-W55 point and shoot camera less than four months later. Another three months later, you tossed that for a Samsung Techwin NV 7 point and shoot, followed by a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75 point an shoot just four days later. Another five months down the road, it's a Canon PowerShot S5 IS compact zoom. Finally, a little over a year later, you switched to a Canon PowerShot A2100 IS point and shoot.
- Additionally, you apparently switched mobile phones from a Nokia N82 to a Nokia N78, back to a Nokia N82, to a Sony Ericsson P1i and back again to a Nokia N82 between April and November of 2009. On 2009-11-26, you apparently took a photo with your Nokia N82 even though you had your Canon PowerShot S5 IS with you and took a photo with that 12 minutes later.
- You were asked in June to explain which of your uploads (if any) are actually your own work. Instead of responding only by blanking all questions, it's time to actually answer them now. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Few seems to be suspicious, but majority (at least all from Nokia N82 and HTC Desire) is OK. I think that problem is language barrier, just copyvinote template is very brief and Commons:Licensing nor Commons:Image casebook (nor Commons:OTRS) did not exists in Farsi. I suggest to found some farsi native speaker and let him talk to Ahura21 in his native language. I will try to contact some farsi speaking admins. --Jklamo (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment The uploader claimed that pictures under the "photographers" section on their user page belongs to their friends and they have permission for using them, however this should be verified through OTRS. ■ MMXX talk 21:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, surely they didn't agree to have their "friend" claim credit for their work. I also think that section is incomplete. For example, File:سینما سعدی.jpg and File:200million-comparison-final.jpg seem to come from other sources. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, many images are not listed on the user page, uploader used 'own work' template incorrectly for many images also some sculptures might not be free as there is no FOP in Iran. ■ MMXX talk 23:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
- به جز این سه تا تصویر و یه تصویر از لوگو بلاگر بقیه تصاویر متعلق به خودم هست که اکثرن هم با موبایل گرفته شدن وبه جز چندتا،و در تاریخ های مختلف از 2009 هست تا 2011
- ،تصاویری که از مجسمه ها گرفته شده نمی دونم چرا حساس تر هست اگه میشه توضیح بدید،یه جای تاریخی هست و همه میرن و عکس می گیرن،مسلما این مجسمه ها هم در اونجا هستند حالا چه جور باید ثابت کنم که خودم گرفتم ؟
- ،فقط می مونه تصاویری که از پانو هست و از صاحب اثر اجازه گرفتم و تصاویر که من اپلود کردم اصل اثر بود که فاقد کادر یا اسم عکاس هست که در سایت می تونید ببینید اکثر عکس هاشون کادر دارن یا اسمشون زیرش حک شده
- این هم میل های صاحب اثر می تونید باهاشون تماس بگیرید
- email:reza193577@gmail.com Reza Hajipour
- email:kalhor.mahdi@gmail.com kalhor.mahdi
- و این همه صفحه خودم در پانو
- عکس هایی هم که با این دوربین ها گرفته شده کار خودم هست فقط وسیله اش ماله خودم نبوده،نمی دونم اون کسی که عکس رو گرفته مهمه یا وسیله ای که ازش استفاده شده،توی سفر می تونه سارژ تموم شه مشکل پیش بیاد و از یه وسیله ی دیگه استفاده کرد
- Sony Ericsson W810i
- Sony DSC-W55
- Samsung Techwin
- Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75
- Canon PowerShot S5 I
- خواهش می کنم این سه تا عکس رو هم برگردونید تا مجوز لازم رو بذارم! خواهش می کنم
- user:ahura21
- The uploader admitted that these three pictures are not their own work: (And I think they don't know who their author is.)
- They say: "Pictures taken by these cameras are my own work but I don't own it's device, I don't know if photographer is important or owner of the camera, in travels some device might run out of battery charge and use another camera"
- Sony Ericsson W810i
- Sony DSC-W55
- Samsung Techwin
- Canon DIGITAL IXUS 75
- Canon PowerShot S5 I
- This is the uploader's page at panoramio and they claim that they have permission from Reza Hajipour and Mahdi Kalhor,
- They also asked for restoring some of images so they could add proper license, but this could only be done after confirming the permission. ■ MMXX talk 11:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I'm glad Ahura21 has finally started interacting, and I'm genuinely sorry it took a mass deletion request to get a response. I can believe that the Nokia N82 and HTC desire photos are the uploader's own photos. As for the rest, I'm still a little hesitant, as the camera switching pattern still seems rather improbable. The ones that are confirmed to come from other Panoramio users, included already deleted ones, need OTRS permission or (and this would be easier for everyone) a change of licensing on Panoramio. The three photos listed above as being of unknown origin should be deleted. Thanks for translating. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
- Reza Hajipour has changed license of their images on panoramio and they can be used freely now. ■ MMXX talk 17:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I agree few need further investigation but majority seems to be in order. Dr. Persi (talk) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Info During the course of this deletion discussion, the uploader has once again blanked their user talk page and uploaded File:Naghsherostam.jpg (not listed above), which they claim to be their own work and which is taken with yet another camera, a Sony DSC-W350 in March 2011. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment This is a confusing case. That pic was uploaded to Ahura's panoramio account within a few days of being taken [16], along with a few other pics taken on the same day. Thus it's unlikely to be stolen from the web. More likely the user either claims his friend's pics as his, or has in fact borrowed his friend's camera. --99of9 (talk) 12:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The image you mentioned (File:Naghsherostam.jpg), is not copyright violation. Check the metadata. And user should have uploaded his images with the information that he has this work in other website. Furthermore, it does not make any sense that someones own work has to do anything with deletion discussion which is assumed as copyright violation but apparently it's not. Only the violation proof will work.Unless and until deletion should be considered carefully--NAHID 18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
- I did check the metadata. How else do you think I noted that it's not taken with any of the half-dozen cameras the uploader claims to be using above? I have no idea what "someones own work has to do anything with deletion discussion which is assumed as copyright violation but apparently it's not" is supposed to mean. The way things work here is that we assume that uploaders are telling the truth until there is a reason to doubt their claims. In this case, the uploader has demonstrably provided false source and authorship information for several of their uploads. That means that their claims need to be viewed with some degree of doubt. —LX (talk, contribs) 22:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Images by Mahdi Kalhor which are not released under a free license and images of sculptures which their creator, owner and date of public presentation is not clear should be deleted. ■ MMXX talk 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
تصاویر تهیهشده بوسیله Mahdi Kalhor که تحت جواز آزاد منتشر نشدهاند و همچنین عکسهای مجسمههایی که سازنده، مالک و تاریخ عرضه آنها مشخص نیست باید حذف شوند. ■ MMXX talk 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, files like File:Parse6.jpg (500px typical panoramio thumbnail size) are obviously copied from other websites, user must take care of such old sins. --Martin H. (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
- But then again File:Parse5.jpg and File:Parse7.jpg were taken with his Nokia, and the full-res uploaded to Panoramio, but only the panoramio thumbnail got through to us... I've now copied across the high-res version. --99of9 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update: In fact this applies to all the other Parses except 6. I guess that's why you picked on 6? --99of9 (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Update 2: Oh, but File:Parse4.jpg wasn't taken with the Nokia... --99of9 (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- All the Sadabad files also appear in his panoramio account, I have uploaded them and filtered them by metadata. On one day (2009-11-26) 3 cameras were used, but they do seem to be the same roadtrip. --99of9 (talk) 01:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- نتیجه گفت و گو برای حذف یا ماندن نگاره ها من چی شد ؟ 31.56.206.238 08:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: I've kept all the Nokia N82 and HTC desire - I am confident they are all own work. I've deleted anything that has no metadata or is not on the list of cameras the user claims (or on his panoramio stream) - they are certainly too risky, given the user did not understand the "own" template. For the cameras he did claim, I'm going to assume good faith for now, because most of the other statements made by the uploader have been validated or at least not found to be false. However if any evidence is later found that any of this category are copyvios, I suggest deletion of all except the Nokia and HTC. 99of9 (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. A row of "National Geographic" images configured by uploader with {{PD-Art}}-fails grabbed from http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/01/125_years_of_national_geograph.html. File:Bp18.jpg (taken in 1963, Associated Press, grabbed from e.g. http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2013/08/revisiting_martin_luther_kings.html) with a {{PD-US}}-fail. Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant (correct) info must be provided.
Gunnex (talk) 20:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I think all of these images are still copyrighted. For example Richard Hewitt Stewart died 2004, Howell Walker died 2003 .... per nom PD-Art is wrong, so they're all missing permission. --Wikijunkie (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. --Krd 16:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Picture represents an old version that is no longer useful or valid Sander kersten (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Image in use at [17] en:Wiki. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment please link the new version and replace en-wiki. --Wikijunkie (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Krd 16:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
The legitimacy of this upload, claimed as PD, has been questioned here and on File talk:Claude Debussy - clair de lune.ogg, which merits an evaluation. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Copyright subsists in original works of authorship fixed in a tangible medium. Accordingly, there are two potential copyrights: 1) the original composition (i.e.,original written sheet music) and 2) the contemporary audio recording. The composition is acknowledged to be PD due to age (Debussy died in 1918). The contemporary recording, presumably, was uploaded relying upon the declaration at musopen.org, the source, that "We provide recordings [...] to the public for free, without copyright restrictions". I, however, consider the related OTRS ticket invalid because it was processed by the file's uploader (no impartial check) and does not appear to contain contact info for the purported musopen.org representative (no means for third-party verification). The noticeboard comments reference the "artist", presumably the performer, which is not necessarily the person who fixed the performance into a tangible medium - the latter would be the copyright holder. Currently, I don't see that we've been provided evidence that the musopen.com declaration or distribution is incorrect. If this is to be deleted, we require something more substantive than "years ago musopen.com incorrectly and inexplicably published [the track]". Please use the procedure at COM:OTRS to provide this substantiation. Until then, Keep. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do we really know enough about the performance and recording to determine that there are no performers' rights in play? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Convention. Indeed, per that wiki article, "in the United States, there is no federal statutory right in unfixed works such as performances, and no federal exclusive right to record a performance". Given the presence of a DMCA policy at the musopen source, I infer that its jurisdiction (and thus the recording) is the United States. Even if the recording was not first published in the US, performers' rights are generally construed as moral rights, which would fall under Commons:Non-copyright restrictions per typical Commons practice. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I actually needn't infer - "Musopen is a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible non-profit charity" [18]. Эlcobbola talk 16:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- I understand that the United States is not a signatory to the Rome Convention. Indeed, per that wiki article, "in the United States, there is no federal statutory right in unfixed works such as performances, and no federal exclusive right to record a performance". Given the presence of a DMCA policy at the musopen source, I infer that its jurisdiction (and thus the recording) is the United States. Even if the recording was not first published in the US, performers' rights are generally construed as moral rights, which would fall under Commons:Non-copyright restrictions per typical Commons practice. Эlcobbola talk 16:26, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do we really know enough about the performance and recording to determine that there are no performers' rights in play? —LX (talk, contribs) 16:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep People uploading the file to Musopen agreed that they are the copyright holders and to release it as PD. I do not see it any different than photographs uploaded to flickr. So unless we have some specific concerns about specific files, I think we should keep them. --Jarekt (talk) 17:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a rather risky comparison, as you should be aware about Commons:QFI and Commons:License laundering. Images imported from Flickr to Commons should get the scrutiny as "direct" uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what if the person uploading the file to Musopen was not the copyright holder? It's the same as license laundering, as Túrelio notes directly above me, if someone uploaded to Musopen without the consent of the actual creator of said work. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- That's a rather risky comparison, as you should be aware about Commons:QFI and Commons:License laundering. Images imported from Flickr to Commons should get the scrutiny as "direct" uploads. --Túrelio (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Posted to Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard and awaiting further input from an agent. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know the ticket number? I don't see any tickets containing keywords Claude, Debussy, Clair, Lune, or Musopen in 2014. Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- Assuming OTRS ticket numbers are basically timestamps, the email was sent Saturday, April 19, 2014 at 9:18 AM TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
- Do you know the ticket number? I don't see any tickets containing keywords Claude, Debussy, Clair, Lune, or Musopen in 2014. Эlcobbola talk 17:51, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per OTRS noticeboard and ticket there is no sufficient permission to keep the file Krd 11:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Irreführender Name der Datei. Dieselbe Datei wurde unter einem besseren Namen File:Grabstein Holenstein 1632 Friedhof St.Michael Marburg.JPG erneut hochgeladen. HeinrichStuerzl (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request Krd 11:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Es existiert mit File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg eine bessere Version Fränsmer (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep in scope, no need to delete it. We're an image archive, we don't delete stuff because something "better" might exist. Multichill (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- If you compare to File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg, you'll see, that the real CoA is different and this here is fictional and never exist outside Wikipedia. Fränsmer (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope: user created without reliable source, incorrect name and display, no discription, unused. Replaced by File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg (more like after original reference) or File:Wappen Freinsheim.svg --
ΠЄΡΉΛΙΟ℗ 23:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC) - See also what the admin User:Odder about this says[19]
Kept: Since the both match the blazon, there is no reason to delete ethier. As a general rule Commons Admins do not take sides in this kind of arguement. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
This is neither the Coat of Arms of former Kreis Brilon (see File:Wappen Kreis Brilon.svg, nor the Coat of Arms of Freinsheim (see File:Stadtwappen Freinsheim.svg) Fränsmer (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept as before. --Krd 12:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, dann wie gehabt getan und jetzt mal "Klartext": Commons:Deletion requests/File:Wappen Freinsheim2.svg Gruß -- Perhelion (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine LGA talkedits 00:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
- The portrait must be a reproduction of an photo made prior to 1917, therefore in public domain. Oleksiy.golubov (talk) 20:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- But the reproduction on the monument will have a separate copyright. LGA talkedits 22:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Mere copying of a flat work of art does not give rise to a new copyright, see {{PD-Art}}. While this is not Oil>Photo, I see no reason why Photo>Stone is not the same since it was obviously done by an entirely mechanical photo-etch process. The question then is, "Is the photo from which this was made PD?" I don't see that a 1917 date guarantees that in Ukraine. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't get the point why The portrait must be a reproduction of a photo made prior to 1917. Please explain. --Krd 11:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't agree. Mere copying of a flat work of art does not give rise to a new copyright, see {{PD-Art}}. While this is not Oil>Photo, I see no reason why Photo>Stone is not the same since it was obviously done by an entirely mechanical photo-etch process. The question then is, "Is the photo from which this was made PD?" I don't see that a 1917 date guarantees that in Ukraine. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: It's unknown by what means the etch work was created. Even though it could've been mechanical etching, manual operations may not be ruled out. Because of it, the portrait cannot be considered a "reproduction of a photo", and the image has to be deleted. Niklem (talk) 17:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
