Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/06/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
copyright violation (http://sport.rbc.ru/euro2012/team/player/79/) Shvann (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
This image is of much too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose. It's out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Not "own work". I would think this logo is copyrightable; not a simple text logo. (Combination of envelope and letter; shadow.) Lupo 09:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Delete Probably simple enough, although redundant to File:Gmail-highres 2.png, File:Googlemaillogo.png and File:New Logo Gmail.svg (if we even need all those, I'd think the svg is enough) --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)- Delete Redundant. Fry1989 eh? 18:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Problem file by a user I have just indefinitely banned for repeatedly uploading non-free content after warnings MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Statues of copyrighted mascots in Japan. No COM:FOP#Japan for modern 3D artwork in Japan. Vantey (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: As per nomination and as part of cleanup russavia (talk) 22:38, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Painter died 1952, so this painting will remain in copyright until the end of 2022. Lupo 14:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Disregard that; uploader mis-specified the death year of the painter: Pisani actually died 1932;[1] so everything is fine. Lupo 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Painter died 1932, not 1952, so the painting is PD since 2003. Lupo 14:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 37.230.243.40 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope Didym (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Could have stayed speedy. Nonsense pic Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Architectural renderings which may be old enough to be free, but without souce information, that cannot be determined, as stands possible COM:COPYVIOs with proper source (not just architectural drawing" as on other uploads) they may be ok.
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 6.jpg
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 5.jpg
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 4.jpg
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 3.jpg
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 2.jpg
- File:Bad Brueckenau Synagoge 1.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Drawings dated before 1908 (more than 106 years old) . Unknown author. In this case, free after 70 years from publication --FLLL (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Please place that information on each of the file templates and also a description of where you obtained these images. They were uploaded from something: a book, a website, etc. Thank you! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK done --FLLL (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- They look good. I
I withdraw my nomination, thank you for all your help! Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Whitdraw Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 01:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
i did not authorize it 172.56.10.50 13:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment Nonsense deletion request. Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 00:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, looks professionally shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Uploader, if you are copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm this. Storkk (talk) 11:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
The depicted bust is likely recent and thereby still copyrighted. Regrettably, there is no freedom-of-panorama exception for such works in Argentina. -- Túrelio (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description 91.64.223.69 16:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Photo of a photo. What's the copyright status of the photographed photo? Lupo 15:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Image was not found at source given. While it may be old enough to be kept, without proper source information, the license provided at upload is incorrect. Uploader has other images nominated for deletion and for "no source". Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: Uploaded in 11.2012 by 1-upload-user Luisfelipesh (talk · contributions · Statistics) the photo is mysteriously watermarked with "diario feminino" (= http://www.diariofemenino.com/), is per exif attributed to the news agency "GTRESONLINE" and was previously published via (example, no exif) http://mujer.es.msn.com/celebrities/fotos.aspx?cp-documentid=155401683&page=13 (2010, © 2014 Microsoft) given credits to "Copyright © 2008 Hachette Filipacchi S.L.". (...)
Update: Most likely grabbed (as already indicated) from http://www.diariofemenino.com/actualidad/fotos/adrian-rodriguez-premios-shangay-2010/ (Copyright © 2013 - DiarioFemenino.com Todos los derechos reservados.) = http://www.diariofemenino.com/images/galeria/10000/10846_adrian-rodriguez-en-los-premios-shangay-2010.jpg (identical exif). Gunnex (talk) 18:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Source is given as own work, unlikely as it is described as a "BP Hanek Martin plan" Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 11.2012 by Txemaprada (talk · contributions · Statistics) the uploader sourced the file with the inexistent template {{Www.mde.es}}, given copyrights to "Armada Española" (Spanish Navy). http://www.mde.es redirects to http://www.defensa.gob.es, the main site of the Spanish Ministry of Defence, configured with "© Copyright 2009 Ministerio de Defensa de España". Gunnex (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Personal image used to allege criminal activity by those depicted Acroterion (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO as the owner of a physical letter is only in the rarest of cases the owner of the copyright which would be owned by Elizabeth Brill or her heirs. See this page for simple explanation of letters copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
A small sized, unused image without source or description placing it outside of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Without source it's not within scope. Source needs to be provided by uploader. Also unused since it's upload. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Image found at "http://hollylena.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html" about 1/3 way down page with no attribution. Image link: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TGpBQE6TRp0/Ubh6XzUoQwI/AAAAAAAAChk/qcWxrvgvyio/s1600/povoden+martin+6.2013+-+d.jpg Both images are exactly same size at 720 X 960 suggesting the original source may have been Facebook. The only meta data here is Picasa. User has other uploads from this same Holly Lena webpage, it's surprising that this one was also not credited to that site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Very low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If this image was part of a CBS television show, I have great difficulty in accepting the PD-Gov tag, making this a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Image found at "http://hollylena.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html" about 1/3 way down page with no attribution. Image link: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZR3bT33658A/Ubh6uxAWKpI/AAAAAAAACh8/QsleiQDZzmM/s1600/povoden+martin+6.2013.jpg Both images are exactly same size at 720 X 960 suggesting the original source may have been Facebook. The only meta data here is Picasa. User has other uploads from this same Holly Lena webpage, it's surprising that this one was also not credited to that site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 12:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Image found at "http://hollylena.blogspot.com/2013_06_01_archive.html" about 1/3 way down page with no attribution. Image link: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-3cEj23zmxUw/Ubh6qBg5aHI/AAAAAAAACh0/IVzL0eXjzCo/s1600/povoden+martin+6.2013+-+e.jpg Both images are exactly same size at 720 X 960 suggesting the original source may have been Facebook. The only meta data here is Picasa. User has other uploads from this same Holly Lena webpage, it's surprising that this one was also not credited to that site. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 06.2008 by 1-upload-user Pablo120 5 (talk · contributions · Statistics), the file appears to be previoulsy published via skyscrapercity.com. The related imageshack-file got deleted or is currently 504 Gateway Time-out. Per source code published via http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=13331839&postcount=44 (05.2007, by romanito).
Affected montage:
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only photo, looks like photo of room in house after just moved in, no educational value, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
out of com:scope McZusatz (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO as the owner of a physical letter is only in the rarest of cases the owner of the copyright which would be owned by Elizabeth Brill or her heirs. See this page for simple explanation of letters copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.64.223.69 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Source is given as own work, unlikely as it is described as a "DP Hanek Martin 2011" Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.64.223.69 15:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused image without significance CennoxX (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.64.223.69 15:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Part of an immediately dropped article about a scoolboy's favourite girl. Now not in use. Bilderling (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused selfie 91.64.223.69 15:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 91.64.223.69 15:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Outb of project scope: Personal image used to allege criminal activity by those depicted Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyvio of [2]. Lupo 06:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO, Image upload template reads "Source Obec Korolupy rok 2005 Author starosta Martin Hanek", neither has any apparent relationship to the uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata and looks very much like a TV screencap. Suspect copyright violation. Storkk (talk) 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep In scope of "Cockapoos" and "dogs playing", etc. Not being in use doesn't mean it isn't in scope. russavia (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenka64 (talk • contribs) 2014-06-02T21:09:36 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
very small photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In scope of "Cockapoos" and "dogs playing", etc. Not being in use doesn't mean it isn't in scope. russavia (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
recent building, I doubt of the public domain licence JeanBono (talk) 09:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
|
Freedom of Panorama This picture of an otherwise copyrighted work may be distributed under the conditions of § 54 (1) Z. 5 of the Austrian copyright law which allows to reproduce, distribute, and publish architectural works of an actual building or other works of visual arts which were created to permanently remain at a public place. Note: Due to the principle of Lex loci protectionis, this applies only to reuse of this picture in Austria. Reuse in other countries is subject to local law. Further information can be found on Commons and in German Wikipedia.
|
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
I will tag the image, will you remove the DR? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There's FoP in Austria. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: FoP in Austria. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to have an useless picture of an unfamous person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.6.93 (talk • contribs) 2014-06-05T02:08:47 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
- Keep In scope of "Cockapoos" and "dogs playing", etc. Not being in use doesn't mean it isn't in scope. russavia (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
_(2).jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
exif says photo created with Microsoft Office? cannot be user's own photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 12:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
File:Mbm jats groups londs-----here dat is-----londaaz-----mbm jodhpur-daleep jhajhria and daleep jhajhia---------hiiiiii---dosto-----koi mujko un mila h jese bnjare ko ghr--- 2014-06-05 00-12.jpg
[edit]
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
small photo with watermark, unlikely user's photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Denniss as no source (No source since):... Reading the history, I see this passed a review by Stemoc but no review tag was placed on the image. I am changing this from a deletion (no source) to a nomination for consensus on this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have already mentioned the source on the image which is this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/narendramodiofficial/12231220583/ --MohitSingh (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Great! I withdraw this nomination. Please take a few minutes to review all your other images and if any have "no source" on them, please provide source? We are working through a 50,000 image backlog of non-sourced images and all the help you can give will be most graciously appreciated! Ellin Beltz (talk)
Kept: withdrawn FASTILY 09:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if this is OK. See previous discussion on VPC. The older DR didn't address this issue. Yann (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: there is reasonable doubt to believe that the Flickr account is operated by government employees, and may be operated by personal staff who do not have authority to release this picture under a free license. ℯxplicit 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Likely copyright Nature Galapagos & Ecuador Cia Ltd. Uploader, if you hold the copyright, please confirm that fact via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 13:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:38, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
File:So many different thoughts running through his head --- But the ? Is what put him in this trance 2013-06-04 20-22.jpg
[edit]
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
If this is "own work" as claimed, then it is personal art and therefore out of scope. If not, then it is a copyvio. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Some doubts about the ownership in this photo. EXIF data differ from username; same shot also found at http://www.fadooda.com/index.php?itemid=585. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader gave this following for source & author: Source Obec Korolupy Author Obec Korolupy, starosta Martin Hanek, 2005. Neither name has any apparent relationship to name of uploader, making this image a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:DW sугсго 13:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wie auf der Seite erwähnt, ist Frau Waltraud Rabich Urheberin des Fotos. Am 01.09.2010 wurde mir von Dr. R. Wirth (Freiberger Altertumsverein), mitgeteilt, dass ein Einverständnis vorliegt. Zitat:
- Sehr geehrter Herr Henkel,
- Sie können dieses Bild gern für Ihr Vorhaben benutzen. Aber bitte nur
- für Wikipedia und bitte mit Nennung der Person, die das Bild gemacht hat: Waltraud Rabich / Dresden.
- Mit freundlichen Grüßen
- Dr.R.Wirth
- Zitat von e-mail address removed. Yellowcard (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
- > Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
- >
- > auf Ihrer Web-Seite
- > http://www.freiberger-altertumsverein.de/fachgruppen/fg-denkmaltopo.htm
- > stellen Sie eine schöne Fotografie der "Silbernen Halbkugel" dar:
- > http://www.freiberger-altertumsverein.de/fachgruppen/images/halbkugel2.jpg
- >
- > Ich habe festgestellt, dass auf der Wikipedia-Seite
- > http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silberne_Halbkugel eine fotografische
- > Darstellung dieser Auszeichnung fehlt.
- >
- > Wären Sie so freundlich, Ihr Foto zur Nutzung auf Wikipedia
- > freizugeben?
- >
- > Falls ja, würde ich mich darum kümmern, dass das Foto dort erscheint.
- >
- > Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
- >
- > Eckhard Henkel
- >
- Liegen Informationen vor, dass diese Freigabe widerrufen wurde? --Hasenläufer (talk) 16:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nachtrag. Die URL in der E-Mail ist inzwischen veraltet. Der Artikel des Freiberger Altertumsvereins ist nun unter dieser Adresse erreichbar. --Hasenläufer (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Noch ein Nachtrag. Wenn ich das Argument COM:DW richtig verstehe, besteht weniger Zweifel an der Freigabe der Fotografin, sondern an der des Bildhauers. Dazu müsste man Fritz Koenig befragen (der in Kürze 90 Jahre alt wird). --Hasenläufer (talk) 17:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Also gibt es gleich zwei Probleme: Erstens reicht die Freigabe nicht, da sie auf Wikipedia beschränkt ist und keine freie Lizenz angegeben wurde. Zweitens fehlt die Fotografiererlaubnis für die abgebildete Medaille (ja, die müsste Fritz Koenig erteilen).
- English:Yellowcard (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC) Delete: Permission for photo itself is limited to being used on Wikipedia only (no free licence), additionally depiction of protected item (copyright holder of the medal is Fritz Koenig).
Deleted: COM:PCP & COM:DW, bitte Freigabe an COM:OTRS senden. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 09:19, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertisement, out of project scope (Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion.) Ies (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:27, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, and without context not realistically useful for an educational purpose - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO because upload template contains the following information: Source Obec Korolupy rok 2005 Author starosta Martin Hanek. Neither of those names matches the uploader, metadata is Picasa. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
File:První zmínka o obci Korolupy - donace Seyfrieda z Hafnerluden a jeho ženy Bohuslawy kostelu ve Vratěníně.jpg
[edit]
Image not found at source provided, possible COM:COPYVIO. Uploader has other images marked for deletion and no source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
can be written as text table to some wikipedia, some homepage material Motopark (talk) 12:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Very low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:35, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of scope. Storkk (talk) 09:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be "own work" of uploader, and probably COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Personal image used to allege criminal activity by those depicted Acroterion (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Personal image used to allege criminal activity by those depicted Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
unknown listing, user's only contribution, no description Mjrmtg (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Sheet music of George Gershwin
[edit]Unfortunately, it seems that the US copyright of Rhapsody in Blue was renewed in 1951, meaning its sheet music is not PD in the United States. I preemptively note the embarrassing history I have with File:RiB-BrokenStyle.png, in that I've both nominated it before and requested its restoration (which correctly failed). But that was years ago. If deleted, please Category:Undelete in 2020.
Storkk (talk) 17:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Edgar cerecedo
[edit]Looks to me like a non notable person. None of the images are in use in any project. out of scope.
- File:Cerecedo edgar 01.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 02.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 03.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 04.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 05.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 06.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 07.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 08.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 09.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 10.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 11.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 12.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 13.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 14.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 15.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 16.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 17.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 18.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 19.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 20.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 21.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 22.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 23.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 24.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 25.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 26.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 27.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 28.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 29.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 30.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 31.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 32.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 33.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 34.jpg
- File:Cerecedo edgar 35.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 01.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 02.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 03.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 04.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 05.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 06.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 07.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 08.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 09.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 10.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 11.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 12.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 13.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 14.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 15.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 16.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 17.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 18.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 19.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 20.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 21.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 22.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 23.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 24.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 25.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 26.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 27.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 28.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 29.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 30.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 31.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 32.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 33.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 34.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 35.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 36.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 37.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 38.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo - 39.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 20.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 42.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 43.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 44.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 45.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 46.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo 47.jpg
- File:Edgar cerecedo.jpg
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
user's only contribution, unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Pure vandalism, used to vandalize articles on enwiki Acroterion (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Other derivatives of the same base image are used at [3] and [4]. Original source unknown, no evidence of free license. Lupo 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio PierreSelim (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded in 2007 and mostly related to politicians of Mexico (governors). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Bassmp3.
- File:Creadoresdehuevocartoons.jpg sourced/permitted with/by "Prensa" ([news] press), needing permission by whomever.
- File:AEchevarriaD.jpg needs (as indciated) permission from "Partido Acción Nacional" and was previously published via (example) http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/mexico/457195.html (2005, Derechos Reservados © Comercio Mas, S.A. de C.V. 2004.) = http://i.esmas.com/image/0/000/004/354/nayaNT_.jpg (broken jpg, but visible via Google cache
- File:Aguilagarza.jpg (obviously resized) appears to be similar to (example) http://www.geocities.ws/films4/aztlan.htm = http://www.geocities.ws/films4/mexcaltitan5.jpg, indexed by Google since 2006.
- File:EmilioManuelGonzálezParra.jpg, portraying es:Emilio M. González who died in 1998 (which does not fit with date = 14.03.2007). Possibly taken during his government of the Mexican state Nayarit (1981-1987) which does not fit with "Nació el 31 de Mayo de 1972" (born in 1972)
Unsure about File:Santiagoixcuintlafoto.jpg and File:MEXCALTITÁN.JPG (here with exif) but given the uploader's history possibly not own works.
- File:Creadoresdehuevocartoons.jpg
- File:CelsoHumbertoDelgado.jpg
- File:Rigobertoochoazaragoza.jpg
- File:EmilioManuelGonzálezParra.jpg
- File:AEchevarriaD.jpg
- File:Santiagoixcuintlafoto.jpg
- File:Aguilagarza.jpg
- File:MEXCALTITÁN.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by សូត្រ ម៉ានិច (talk · contribs)
[edit]All images widely published on the web, and the uploader is unlikely to be the copyright holder. This can be disputed via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
After today identifying around 20 uploads as copyvio (grabbed from different Panoramio-/Flickr-accounts, blogs etc., full details at User talk:Seamaisin) it´s difficult to believe that these remaining files would be own work: IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material (small/inconsistent resolutions, missing exif) so these ones (per COM:PRP) can't be believed either. All files related to en:Loughmore / en:County Tipperary, some of them cropped.
- File:L'more.jpg
- File:Castle L'more.jpg
- File:View of The Suir in Loughmore.jpg
- File:The Cottage, Loughmore, County Tipperary.png
- File:The Vee Co Tipperary.jpg
- File:Lough Derg.jpg
- File:Thurles2.jpg
- File:View of Devil's Bit from Loughmore.jpg
- File:Cottage in Loughmore.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely own work PierreSelim (talk) 06:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Two of the photos are clearly from worldstadiums.com, and the other two are also available on various stadium sites/Skyscraper city. Highly unlikely that these are the uploader's work.
- File:Mubarak International Stadium.jpg
- File:Al-Salam Stadiyum.jpg
- File:Cairo-stadium.jpg
- File:Borg El Arab Stadium.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:These are my boys! Corey & Cameron 2014-06-04 17-23.jpg
- File:My daughter Caitlynn & I Thanksgiving Day 2013 2014-06-04 17-21.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of project scope PierreSelim (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Self prommotional or spam picture(s), out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lenka Lyalikoff (talk · contribs)
[edit]The modern maps are screenshots (stated so in upload template), the older ones are mostly marked "© 1st (2nd ) Military Survey, Section No. xy, Austrian State Archive/Military Archive, Vienna © Laboratoř geoinformatiky Univerzita J.E. Purkyně - http://www.geolab.cz © Ministerstvo životního prostředí ČR - http://www.env.cz" and the one map neither of the above is labeled only "historic map" ... The uploader's other images (and there have been a lot of them recently) are mostly without source and have been ns tagged.
- File:Kam dopadaly sovětské bomby v posledních hodinách války.jpg
- File:Soutok Blatnice a Želetavky - Suché skály.jpg
- File:Rancířovský potok a PP Kysibl.jpg
- File:Pramen řeky Blatnice.jpg
- File:Blatnice - Uherčická louka.jpg
- File:Blatnice - vodní plocha Dešná.jpg
- File:II. vojenské (Františkovo) mapování - Ungarschitz - Uherčice Klampfermühle.jpg
- File:I. vojenské (josefské) mapování - Ungarschitz - Uherčice Klampfermühle.jpg
- File:II. vojenské mapování Kurlupp čp.1 Korolupský mlýn.jpg
- File:Mapa Korolupy I. vojenské mapování.jpg
- File:MAS Jemnicko.jpg
- File:Korolupy poloha.jpg
- File:Lánová ves.jpg
- File:Historická mapa Korolupy.jpg
_mapov%C3%A1n%C3%AD_-_Ungarschitz_-_Uher%C4%8Dice_Klampferm%C3%BChle.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_mapov%C3%A1n%C3%AD_-_Ungarschitz_-_Uher%C4%8Dice_Klampferm%C3%BChle.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Technonetix (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam (w:Special:Undelete/Technonetix).
MER-C 12:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sallyaul2013 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Sallyaul2013. Historical photos/paintings may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Mobile (1938).jpg
- File:Kinetic Construction (in motion) by Naum Gabo.jpg
- File:Dance by Rodchenko.jpg
- File:Feunes Spartiates S'exercant a la Lutte.jpg
- File:Suspended Cube.tiff
- File:L'Orchestra de L'Opera.jpg
- File:Hanging Construction.jpeg
- File:Le Bateau-Atelier sur Seine.jpg
- File:Manet-ballet-espagnol-1862.jpg
- File:Voiture aux Courses.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_by_Naum_Gabo.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 08:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks
- File:The American Dream etc..JPG
- File:SATCHMO by Polo.JPG
- File:Jimmy.JPG
- File:Tyler abstract.JPG
- File:Days of the week.JPG
- File:Janice.JPG
- File:CHIEF JOSEPH by Ge Polo.jpg
- File:WOLF ROBE by Ge Polo.jpg
- File:Ge Polo American Dream.jpg
- File:Gepolo "Mick the Beef Eater".jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 13:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolutions and lack of metadata. Additionally, with such low resolutions and without meaningful file names, descriptions or categories, the images are not realistically useful for educational purposes.
- File:Psu.jpg
- File:钱喂.jpg
- File:Xcvbn.jpg – grabbed from http://www.zcyz.com/E_ReadNews.asp?NewsID=602
- File:Vbo.jpg
- File:Psb.jpg
- File:Lk.jpg
- File:Er.jpg
- File:Dfgh.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Finger Mixing (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: self-created artworks. Just two of these images are in use, but only on a fr-WP user page of a contributor without any useful contribution to the project, so they can be deleted also imho.
- File:Passion tourment.JPG (in use)
- File:Passion tourmenté.jpg
- File:Italia glace.JPG
- File:Chien de printemps.jpg (in use)
- File:FingerMixing.JPG
BrightRaven (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status: Uploaded in 08.2007 by Goon (talk · contributions · Statistics), indefinitely blocked abusing multiple account(s) of Gonnz (talk · contributions · Statistics), known to be a mass copyvioer using more than 15 different cameras (see also here) = unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering also logs. Some of the followoing files previously published (even in lower res) via skyscrapercity.com. Examples:
- File:Grosisimo cba.jpg (15.08.2007) versus http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=417344 (12.2006, by alonsomd2000) = http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/4006/90743908b85d75212dbli4.jpg
- File:Cascohistoricodecba.jpg (15.08.2007) versus http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=510643 (13.08.2007, by panic) = http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/6564/image0002dd1.jpg
- File:Minuevacordoba.jpg (16.08.2007) versus skyscrapercity.com (the file on imageshack got deleted.
- File:Grosocba.jpg (16.08.2007, exif available) versus http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=9823341&postcount=36 (09.2006 by alonsomd2000) = http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/6118/00014992nvmax4.jpg
Affected montages:
Possibly related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Gone1.
- File:Grosocba.jpg
- File:Minuevacordoba.jpg
- File:Buenpastor111.jpg
- File:Desdeavioncba.jpg
- File:Cascohistoricodecba.jpg
- File:Grosisimo cba.jpg
- File:Callecentro.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ISMAIL AIT YDIR (talk · contribs)
[edit]This broad assortment of small color and B&W images does not look like "own work" as claimed. They are useless without descriptions and categories.
- File:Hh 2014-06-05 22-36.jpg
- File:O 2014-06-05 22-31.jpg
- File:Aa 2014-06-05 22-28.jpg
- File:V 2014-06-05 22-26.jpg
- File:C 2014-06-05 22-24.jpg
- File:G 2014-06-05 22-23.jpg
- File:V 2014-06-05 22-22.jpg
- File:C 2014-06-05 22-14.jpg
- File:V 2014-06-05 22-13.jpg
- File:B 2014-06-05 22-04.jpg
- File:V 2014-06-05 22-02.jpg
- File:F 2014-06-05 22-01.jpg
- File:H 2014-06-05 21-57.jpg
- File:A 2014-06-05 21-53.jpg
- File:Hola 2014-06-05 21-52.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Asor-stban (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks
- File:Bouddha Thaïlandais 2.jpg
- File:Bouddha Thaïlandais.jpg
- File:Phare2.png
- File:Phare.png
- File:Bouddha thai-Stban.png
- File:Bou2dha Japon - Crayon et Peinture - CD & Stban.png
- File:SpreadShirt Bou2dha Japon - Crayon et Peinture - Stban.png
- File:Bou2dha Precheur - Stban.png
- File:ASOR-STBAN Youngang Bouddha visage.jpg
- File:ASOR-STBAN Boddhisattva (Bouddha du peuple).jpg
- File:ASOR-STBAN bouddha et dieu serpent-thai 2010.jpg
- File:Asor-Stban Tete de bouddha thai.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
BrightRaven (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused files, private images: pictures of a non notable metal group.
- File:SEKT - The band - Deep in the norwegian forest.jpg
- File:Torden - SEKT drummer .jpg
- File:Azrael.jpg
- File:Azrael - Rythm guitars.jpg
- File:Torden - SEKT drummer.jpg
- File:Xerxes SEKT vocalist.jpg
- File:Image 21214.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ricardosilveira (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, self-created artworks + 2 private images. Just one of these last two images is in use, but only on a en-WP user page of a contributor without any useful contribution to the project, so it can be deleted also inho.
- File:Ricardo German Silveira.jpg
- File:Ricardo G. Silveira.jpg (this one is in use on a user page)
- File:STT105.jpg
- File:STC 2 .jpg
- File:Distorsion de colores.jpg
- File:NTT5.jpg
- File:Mar Caribe.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 11:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 09:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GaboBichillo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:GaboBichillo. Spezial case: File:Kit body herediano local 2014.png --> here the "kölbi"-logo appears to be out of scope of PD-textlogo (or PD-whatever). All files related to es:Club Sport Herediano, a football club based in Heredia, Costa Rica. Historical photos like File:Herediano en 1921.jpg + File:Herediano1930.jpg may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Kit body herediano local 2014.png
- File:Acta Constitutiva 1921.jpg
- File:La Garra.jpg
- File:Herediano en 1921.jpg
- File:Herediano1930.jpg
- File:Campeones 21.jpg
- File:Campaña para el Torneo 2013.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work PierreSelim (talk) 06:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MotherForker (talk · contribs)
[edit]Videos in Argentina are protected by copyright for 50 years, as per Template:PD-AR-Anonymous (photos are 25 years as per Template:PD-Argentina). These videos are works of Televisión Pública Argentina, or other entities, for which we do not have explicit permission to use their materials under CC licencing. A couple of the videos utilise PD reasoning (Art. 28, Ley 11723) which although allowing for reuse and redistribution, does not allow for remixing (modification and derivative works), so are there also invalid for hosting on Commons. Hopefully the uploader will be able to obtain some OTRS permission from the TV station for these videos, so will ask that this is left open for a couple of weeks longer than normal, as a courtesy. ~
- File:Cristina.fernandez.ogv
- File:Lopez.Murphy.ogv
- File:Cavallo.ogv
- File:Martinez.de.ogv
- File:Menem.reforma.ogv
- File:De.la.rua.ogv
- File:NUNCA MAS.ogv
- File:ObjetivoPapelPrensa.ogv
- File:GuerradeMalvinas.ogv
- File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv
- File:PeronenlaCGT-1973-TVPublica.ogv
- File:Asuncion.alfonsin.1983.ogv
russavia (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Those videos are taken from the "Bicentennial Collection", a set of 14 DVDs issued about November 2010 by RTA (Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E.), the federal agency in charge of public audiovisual media, including Televisión Pública and LRA Radio Nacional, and therefore lawful copyright owner. The set was released under a CC-by-sa 2.5 license. I don´t have a physical copy of the set, but have just asked for a scan. Cinabrium (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A friend has just sent me a scanned copy of the DVD-set box. It reads:
RTA Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E.
Colección del bicentenario - Primera Edición
Este proyecto fue creado y realizado por RTA S.E., sus autoridades y más de doscientos trabajadores y trabajadoras de la Radio Nacional y la Televisión Pública [...]
La Colección del Bicentenario es una producción integral de Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E. (RTA S.E.) editada bajo licencia Creative Commons by-sa Argentina 2.5. La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro. RTA S.E. promueve la copia y difusión de los contenidos de esta colección. Primera Edición, Octubre 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
- Loosely translated, it means: "This project was created and made by RTA S.E., their authorities and more than two hundred workers of National Radio and Public TV [...] The Bicentennial Collection is an integral production of Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E. (RTA S.E.) published under Creative Commons by-sa Argentina 2.5 license. The distribuition of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations. RTA S.E. encourages copying and distributing the contents of this collection. First Edition, October 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina."
- Cinabrium (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MotherForker (talk · contribs)
[edit]The caveat with the licence "The distribuition of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations" means they cant be hosted on commons.
- File:Cristina.fernandez.ogv
- File:Lopez.Murphy.ogv
- File:Cavallo.ogv
- File:Martinez.de.ogv
- File:Menem.reforma.ogv
- File:NUNCA MAS.ogv
- File:ObjetivoPapelPrensa.ogv
- File:GuerradeMalvinas.ogv
- File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv
- File:PeronenlaCGT-1973-TVPublica.ogv
- File:Asuncion.alfonsin.1983.ogv
LGA talkedits 03:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It is clear that my closure above was incorrect. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Not free as in COM:L --PierreSelim (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
As pointed out to me, the files had been upload with a CC-BY-SA 2.5 AR licence without any doubt by the RTA which has collaborated with Wikimedia Argentina to do so. Some DVDs have been distributed for free to institution which doesn't change the licence or it scope. Please read this page before closing. . --PierreSelim (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Pierre, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the writer of the page you cite (and perhaps WP Argentina as well) does not understand that a license reading "The distribution of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations" is not compatible with WP and Commons.
- It seems to me that files taken from the DVD set referenced above are not properly licensed for Commons or WP. If, subsequently, the RTA has published the files with a CC-BY-SA license without the "intended for non-profit organizations" restriction, then we can keep them. In order to make that decision, we will need sources with that license for each of the files. We certainly cannot depend on the piece you cite, as it is contradicted by the only source that we actually have. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, I invite you to have a look at the comment I wrote on PierreSelim's talk page. It's in French (you can read French, I think). I will try to explain here in English (it takes me much more time to write in English) in relation to what you wrote.
- The page cited was written by the former Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina, Beatriz Busaniche, who is also the uploader whose uploads are targeted by the present deletion request. She has a Master degree in Intellectual Property and she was a participant to Creative Commons Argentina. She was aware of RTA's process during the period of the licensing. She probably knows more about CC licenses in Argentina than a fair proportion of us and I would think twice before dismissing her work in relation with this licensing, to instead accept a deletion request apparently made in a few seconds without thinking. (Sidenote: I know that some of LGA's work in some other DRs is sometimes unjustly criticized by some people. That doesn't mean he's always right. It just happens that IMHO this request here is wrong.)
- What you imply is that the RTA executives and legal counsels are incompetents who can't write a notice. I watched video interviews of the RTA team members who worked on the project and I watched the video of Wikimedia's 2010 GLAM conference in France, where among other examples the then-new RTA licensing was presented and explained. What I understand is that the RTA successively: a) developed a well-thought approach about how they wanted to manage their archival material, and decided for an approach prioritizing unrestricted release when possible ; b) selected and identified the items which they officially released under CC-by-sa Ar-2.5 ; and c) produced a compilation of some (or most, or all) that CC-by-sa material on a series of 14 DVDs also labeled, of course, with the same CC-by-sa Ar-2.5 licence.
- In the press conference when the RTA team launched the publication of the DVD sets, they explained their approach. (Video interviews of the team members with different media are available on the net.) They don't look like a group of morons. They sound like they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. The president of RTA insists on their approach of democratization of their audio and video archives, based on the notion that it belongs to everybody, and how it is important for them that this not only be made available, but made available in a manner that is "libre" (free, as in unrestricted), so it can be reused widely. I don't see why there would be any difficulty with the printed mention of the CC license on the boxes. It is plain, straightforward and clear as pure water. It states plainly that the material is under the license CC-by-sa Ar-2.5. They even add that the RTA encourages its copy and diffusion. Their objective is that the works will be propagated, it is not to make money with selling copies. Obviously, they can pay the manufacture of a certain limited number of copies. I don't know how many they had made, it does not matter. Their mode of diffusion is to provide the original copies to schools, libraries, a network of NPOs, so, that way and from there, it is available to the people and the material can be further copied and reused and diffused by all people who want to reuse it under the free license. Totally cool method, I think. This seems like a fairly good method of diffusion adapted for cultural institutions who want to diffuse freely licensed material. It makes perfectly good use of free licensing. It is nothing that should surprise us. It's a fine example of what cultural institutions, or for that matter any licensor, can do, and actually do, to make effective use of free licenses to diffuse their works.
- This can easily happen in other contexts too. A local historian in a small community may decide to write an account of local history and make it available under a free license. His objective doesn't have to be to make money, just to have his work preserved, made freely available and, hopefully, reused by as many people as possible. He may decide to print only a couple hundred original material copies of his freely licensed work and distribute those book copies to libraries and schools and volunteer history associations in his area. He would write a notice: "I publish this work under the license CC-by-sa 3.0. I printed and distributed to non-profit associations the 200 original copies I could pay for. I encourage the further copy and diffusion under the free license." For his free license to be valid, nothing forces an author to distribute material copies to commercial bookstores and groceries. Nothing in a CC license forces the licensor to manufacture 10 billion material copies of the licensed work and to provide a material copy to each and every human being on the planet, under penalty of invalidity of the license. He may distribute original copies only to his family members and friends, or to any special or non special group of people as he wants. It does not change or affect the license. The free license is still there to be used by anybody, because that's what free licenses are made for. The nominator of the deletion request confuses the licensing of a work and the mode of distribution of material copies. He imagines a problem where there is none. I'm all in favor of questioning licenses when they deserve to be, but here we're not in presence of some webmaster who might have written a bad license. There is nothing dubious in the RTA's project and licensing under CC-by-sa Ar-2.5. The notice just has to be read for exactly what it says clearly and unsurprisingly in plain words used in their plain meaning. The notice is already clear when read by itself. But, if possible, it is even more obvious after having looked at the context.
- Furthermore, the RTA is certainly well aware that their material is reused under CC-by-sa (as it should, because that's exactly the objective), Wikimedia Argentina has publicly congratulated them for it and given media interviews about it, the files are under CC-by-sa on Commons since four years, it is a notorious example of a successful result of campaigns by the free licensing movements and by Wikimedia to have institutions put material under free licenses, and as far as I could find the RTA has never indicated that their license had been misunderstood or misused or that they changed their mind.
- So, here we have clearly freely licensed material, precious items which we are justly proud to have and present as examples, from exactly the type of project we campaign for and the type of licensing we encourage cultural institutions to use. And, one fine day, on a whim, some user who passes by decides to do a hit-and-run request to have all those fine files go *poof*. This feels like being in a museum and seeing some nightwatchman about to throw some of the old and notorious artifacts in the garbage because he doesn't pay attention and to him they look like pieces of scrap left behind by visitors.
- I know what the deletion nominator will say. He will say that just because he imagines a doubt, slight as it is, we should delete the items, or other people than him should go through the trouble of obtaining one more confirmation of this license. As tempting as it may sound to drown the fish that way by suggesting to ask a permission, it is not the proper approach in this case. It's a main feature of free licenses that they don't need further permissions. What we have here is not some newbie's undocumented upload from some dubious source. We have stable items, with a known free license, from a known source, from a known project, managed by responsible people. The pretense for the deletion request is not serious. What would one be supposed to ask from the RTA? "Dear RTA, please send to Wikimedia one more confirmation of the already clear license, that you have widely publicized, of which Wikimedia is already well informed and has already publicly thanked you for. We're asking this only because one of our users can't read one of the notices and believes that you are all idiots." If the nominator wants to ask such confirmation to reassure himself, let him do it. If he manages to obtain a reply, we'll archive it. But when there is really no doubt, it is not responsible from him to ask other people to get confirmation for each and every file Commons hosts. In the meantime, in a case like this, there's no reason to delete the files.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Asclepias so why not just contact the RTA and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified for sure, would just be so much easier and then there would be a record of it on file ? LGA talkedits 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? Asclepias has actually already given some points on that. You seem to believe that OTRS is a no-cost system, which would make it always advantagous to use. This is in my opinion not true. First, of course, there is the cost imputed to the OTRS volunteers on permissions@ (but well, I’ve learnt to not expect much consideration for us). But there is also the cost to the OTRS perception & reputation: the more you force folks to use it for no or dubious reason, the less it will be understood when it is necessary. I already know some folks who shoot an email to OTRS for every upload for no reason, just because they have come to internalize that their files would be safer with a {{PermissionOTRS}} sticker slapped on it − whatever that means. The cost to Commons as a society is not null − I would argue that OTRS-zealousness promotes a culture of more suspicion than is healthy on one side, and of doubt of the soundness and thus legitimacy of this institution. And finally, as Asclepias has mentionned, it is a feature of free licences to be resusable without further permission − because permission was already given.
- To finish on a less lyric tone. Suppose we get an email on OTRS from RTA. Very well. But what does « from RTA » means? Does the person at the other end really knows shat they’re talking about? Shouldn't we ask for their legal department? But wait, do they have the authority to confirm this? Shouldn’t we ask their director? I am not trying to strawman or slipperyslope this conversation, jus st to point out that « ask Groß Inßtitution » to shoot an email to OTRS does not mean much in itself. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Asclepias so why not just contact the RTA and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified for sure, would just be so much easier and then there would be a record of it on file ? LGA talkedits 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- As made clear here : "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". Nothing on that linked page changes that. LGA talkedits 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment I have reverted my closure, it doesn't mean someone else can't close it as delete. And I'm sorry but as I have speak spanish for years, I prefer not to cast any opinion on this because I have doubt both ways. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Pierre, I would always defer to someone who speaks the relevant language in a difficult situation, but doesn't your uncertainty mean "delete" -- that's our rule when there is significant doubt. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- When I have doubt on my personal judgement I generally prefer to have time to think about the question, now after doing more research my doubts are more on the pro deletions arguments than the other way. This release under CC-BY-SA was a much advertised actions by Wikimedia Argentina such as presentation at Wikimania, or the blog post I've linked before. To me it looks like RTA and WMAR has been in contact and I'm pretty sure they were informed of what CC-BY-SA means. Then without the entire text I'm having quite some doubts, citations are often misleading. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Great files with clear free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment I sent an email to Wikimedia Argentina contact email to let them know of this discussion − someone there might have valuable input. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Why ? would it have been more productive to send RTA the email and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified. LGA talkedits 22:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- o_ô It took me something like two minutes to retrieve the WMAR email address on Meta & shoot them an email. Not sure I would even find RTA contact page in that time. And yeah, I can totally see myself shoot a random email to whatever-general-contact
in a such a big organisation saying “Hey, there’s this deletion request about your files, xoxo” ; while as WMAR taked to them, I believe it is fair to suppose they have the right contact ready-by, and that they would be more than happy to contact RTA on behalf of the Commons community for clarification (speaking the language might help too). Jean-Fred (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- o_ô It took me something like two minutes to retrieve the WMAR email address on Meta & shoot them an email. Not sure I would even find RTA contact page in that time. And yeah, I can totally see myself shoot a random email to whatever-general-contact
- Keep. Thanks Jean-Fred for contacting Wikimedia Argentina. I believe this discussion stems from a misunderstanding generated by the loose translation. Radio y Televisión Argentina SE clearly states that the collection is published under a CC-by-sa license. The following line refers not to the contents but to the physical DVDs from where Cinabrium copied the statement (la presente edición). But the key issue here is that in any case "La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro" does not mean that the distribution of the DVDs is intended at nonprofits in the sense that it shouldn't happen otherwise, it merely says that that series of DVDs (the edición) are aimed to be distributed for free among non-profit organizations. There should be no controversy because there is simply no contradiction. Let me further clarify that the local usage of instituciones sin fines de lucro is loosely used as an equivalent for what we would here call GLAM rather than their tax status or legal definition. --Galio (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification but google translates it as "The distribution of this edition is free and is intended for nonprofit institutions", so we do need the RTA to confirm with OTRS what they mean. LGA talkedits 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I never thought that being a native speaker I'd have to discuss Spanish with Google Translate ;). The world intended is not present in Spanish and there is no possible cognate there, it talks instead about the presente edición (i.e. these DVD boxes) being destinada to be distributed among nonprofits. Destinada has no legal connotation and, even if one could force a legal reading, it has nothing to do with what intended can mean. It is the previous line that refers to the Colección del Bicentenario. And, in case of doubt, there is a third line that adds clarity for it makes no mention to any kind of gratuity clause: "RTA promotes the copy and dissemination of the contents of this collection". It is clear what RTA meant: a collection of videos under CC-by-sa whose copy and dissemination it promotes, and a [physical] edition of DVDs to be distributed among nonprofits, as if Wikimedia Argentina edited a collection of Wikipedia articles aimed to be distributed in schools. --Galio (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Conflicto de edición) Dear LGA: it might be a language issue, but so far I'm looking at the Merrian-Webster dictionary definition of intend and I don't find the word exclusive, exclusively or any synonym. In this sense, I can't understand why the goal to distribute that edition (that is, that specific set of DVDs) to nonprofite institutions with a CC-BY-SA license is in any way confusing or self-contradictory. In any case, the Spanish sentence "La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro", does not mean at all, and can't be understand, as "... is intended exclusively to nonprofits.". And please understand that this is a multilingual project, that many non-English speakers make a great effort to join these kind of discussions, and that is just not reasonable to argue that "as google translation of your non-English sentence is confusing I need an OTRS confirmation, otherwise I will delete your file". I'm sorry but in that case you will have to assume good faith and trust those colleagues that can understand as native speakers that non-English language. Patricio (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The more time we spend analysing words and translating them back and forth the more it goes to show that there is doubt over the exact nature of the release and therefore we do need to have it clarified and the more people say it's not necessary the more I have to wonder why they don't want to ask the RTA what is it they are worried of ? I go back to the COM:UNDEL request where it was made clear that "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". I am happy to tag each file with {{Npd}} if that would help. LGA talkedits 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- LGA, it is you who is translating back and forth. We just explain what this text in Spanish talks about (and yes, we are forced to translate it to English if we intend to discuss anything in Commons with a slight chance of being considered). But since you are suggesting we don't want to ask RTA for a written statement I'll be clear enough: No, we'd prefer not to ask RTA for a further statement. Why, you may ask? Because the licensing terms are not ambiguous. We Wikimedians should be the first interested in keeping the licensing conditions free, and we —Beatriz, in fact— invested a lot of time in dealing with RTA's Legal team to ensure this collection could be published under CC-by-sa as the copyright notice clearly states. I don't know how else can we explain that there is no contradiction in that statement and that, what is more, the two sentences refer to different things. We are discussing a line that doesn't refer to the files being challenged here! We have a working relationship with RTA and we as Wikimedia Argentina can certainly ask for an email to have an OTRS ticket —if Commons admins decide that is necessary, then please avoid deleting these files until such text exists. But we fear that RTA will find it difficult to understand what the problem is supposed to be at all, since there is no ambiguity in the terms we are discussing, and if we insist it will be us, the most interested in keeping these licensing terms, the ones to drive the case back to Legal and open a Pandora box that right now is closed and it is not necessary to open. Am I clear? It's up to Commons' admins judgement. --Galio (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The more time we spend analysing words and translating them back and forth the more it goes to show that there is doubt over the exact nature of the release and therefore we do need to have it clarified and the more people say it's not necessary the more I have to wonder why they don't want to ask the RTA what is it they are worried of ? I go back to the COM:UNDEL request where it was made clear that "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". I am happy to tag each file with {{Npd}} if that would help. LGA talkedits 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification but google translates it as "The distribution of this edition is free and is intended for nonprofit institutions", so we do need the RTA to confirm with OTRS what they mean. LGA talkedits 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- KEEP per Galio's several comments during this deletion discussion. There is a clearly free license with additionally included information about the method of distribution of the material that has nothing to do with the copyright status. Additionally, the uploaders of the content are well aware of the license status and that it is appropriate for Commons. There is no reason to burden the group with further requests for clarification. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The license is crystal clear in Spanish. Also, this is the result of a joint effort by WA and TA. LGA, I understand you're taking your time to ensure that Commons is free of non-legal material. However, in this case in particular, your use of Google Translator and the need to contact an instituion after they have clearly licensed their material are simply unnecessary. You can't just make a case out of something just because such license is dubious by means of an automated translation. Alhen .::··¨ 11:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If I burn Wikipedia in some DVDs and then say that those DVDs I burnt are gifts intended for non-profit organizations, does Wikipedia magically become NC? --Racso (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing terms are clear, so there is no need of any OTRS permission here. --Jaqen (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- kept. The files were relesed under a free license. The releasing organization can intend the content to whatever matter they prefer, but the chosen license is the best proof. Don't assume there lawers are stupid. matanya • talk 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?tbs=sbi:AMhZZitVKkQKTQpdSkjN8aJRRwKzbhQTTIbfH-250unKIqZqvKA3l4XLKYr082A34lxHSc_1ueW1IzH6CbOYpzI05xNT_1Z4RgOW_1lTNkw4LslGrgpDMZ5rZKdf5_1N3Auh5c2xSfDYQk6gpbLBPhKqnUV-SYZjaP9YY9k1VD3jR4EcMcfFdHJkJ6rHi-HosCuBwJLKsRtCS-c3JWBNrFV6DAd3DC2iSGN-4hv_1ioopTBzay4LVLpVZNFPwtmWE1KvYdsqO8DzCP1j8aq8lmZeTAO8nVoyxXoYjTiyX8KSyogv6Wk54LZ_1CteuvmOFpmub5jtXWcv3QzVfAqWkHtqnpGjZrayLK5QQgcpHXfIfZgdLRLj1tluauej5UOBgbYTrDXe3UUAq1IZJAU1OzMA7lJKdMlByN902o4IGfw4JgpsPnIu2pLhNRPjDuUq_1tCogXeCW2rhLiTEOoQvwudrQID1rfxrW9E6Ku6LKLvfDhbqI_1e2YW9MIzsJ13f_1wKIvw7n-Ya4dVoWQK0Lm-59J5QdeY5w-3BmjGX388NhXhd_1eS-IE46l0sDm-gyYv-kFkjRRXcdgrviU7RvcZGc8BxVnVIXWZX0YyXgoc6x0hDL94pgHRhtKsXgI79ThOXp40Xp1vg4JbSCInSJsqNzTmMIUJxEglJEIoLUvDRHhGmgaVhq1JLnlASMezLnKdWQm48Na8xEkZJN6OTCKqBTE5nxCb7uhKxZUBqaubLuEl4lw67XUOx7S5NrB_1RriXbg3hhqPnzmr1uA2Oe_1mqM1pmWIl4XZpuGHM8ompX5HGImS_1uudogE_1KcH1MvVhf76JuZ96fKDdHmYYCNgdy_1QAdz9WozA-QKBudtKG0B8fu1gwmfeG4j7Gxmix1JxLa7piKkguekOy4vwQMtdUfCLcFOuw3fDxvqGYuWZSM3GNlPBb1i0JlWFkIARy_1-o4eg6IlnfA_1ljhSpGzaeWPlF7mpMEw08h-gSThnzVNXe5A1Q_1lynA3I2i7WyEjGnT77ZZgRJbNxzf1hiO_1ZY29klPFKuakyAEiSei_1zZxeWkg8hZYvrFlyY2tlb0efvrLRU24amCq2RpZVQwiWo-lpTLD6eNhAHtLu9J3oILM8NTBINGGpVKxFDHCvEsWmh02HZwEOEL3ofsNZBHcjZDbpi-st3o54xdjENVUk-_1RGCxpklsZyQrl-QuqJ1ioqe06CqWwwPNAODxZt0xwjQbkHZKSl3RSbswWQOUTC_1DR1vRaUhuvBWi6wX-UtA5h27NY5vdY46xXoGJukeRsEzxz1bvisfDDezAs0YNsjzItopz6zszR397LOZV09g_1DJBNCOKVHjs9TTrnhVb8AM66NIsXkStos-Wqs2n3rtI94YmTbR8iBxYdllD5U3qvZUG3g Motopark (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not being used on any wiki page Aftabbanoori (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - Commons does not exist solely for the benefit of the other wikis. Images do not need to be used on a wiki page to be kept. --LukeSurl (talk) 11:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Plus, it is now being used on the Khanpur Dam page on the English Wikipedia. --LukeSurl (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nomiator has requested withdrawal of the nomination at the English Wikipedia. --LukeSurl (talk) 11:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agree
I agree with LukeSur1. By mistake I tag it for deletion, I request for removal of deletion tag from the image. Aftabbanoori (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Canada does not have 2D FOP allowance, in addition to the fact this is clearly a derivative work of copyrighted characters. Masem (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - Agreed. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Нет разрешения автора или журнала на публикацию под указанной лицензией Dogad75 (talk) 08:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: OTRS needed Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
It seems unlikely that the uploader, who is a long-term serial copyright violator, is the author of this stamp, and there is no evidence that the stamp is in the public domain. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Porque desaparecerá para que la suba otra vez. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are the uploader, just upload the new version. If you want to upload an SVG version or you want to delete the previous versions, please use {{Speedy}} insetad. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason to delete. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Violación de derechos de autor. El logo de TV Azteca es marca registrada. Vichock (talk) 00:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Already kept and in use. Too simple to meet the treshold of originality, so, the file is {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Not necessarily below TOO, so, as not in use, deleted per COM:PCP. --Krd 18:10, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't depict the exact Escuda Halcon emblem Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Only the hawk somewhat resembles the logo, though the lines are a mess. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It is in use in several places and therefore cannot be deleted except for licensing reasons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Malformed emblem. It has to be a condor and not an eagle. No crescent with name and location Maxxl² - talk 08:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why do u not ask someone to change that? It sounds for me as if it is the same reason as that from 5th June.--Sanandros (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- The real version is File:Brigada Halcon escudo.svg is ready and has replaced the fantasy badge. -- Maxxl² - talk 09:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete A superior version has replaced this file, so it is no longer in use. The two instances on Commons can be solved by simply redirecting this filename to File:Brigada Halcon escudo.svg after deletion. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The real version of the emblem is File:Brigada Halcon escudo.svg. This is only a fantasy logo with no resemblance to reality. - Fma12 (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 08:42, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
This file has been created and used on the editor's English Wikipedia user space for a make-believe contest, which goes against no web host policies. Wes Mᴥuse 02:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded this file, and I accidentally included some personal information within the metadata, so I would like to have it taken down. Tokugawapants (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Rather creative design and thereby to be considered copyrighted. As it's indoor, hardly covered by freedom-of-panorama terms. Requires permission from the architect/designer. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
We own copyright for this design. Check out our webpage: www.wulffentre.com. This is design made by our design team, so it belongs to us. -- Wulff Entre (talk) 10:03, 5 June 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulffentre (talk • contribs) 07:04, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please send a confirmation from your business email account to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org (OTRS). --Túrelio (talk) 07:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: It appears on the cited web site, with a clear (c) All Rights Reserved. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Published here: http://www.courierpress.com/photos/galleries/2013/feb/05/evansville-vanderburgh-public-library-turned-100-j/33006/ " " OTRS permission required or a proof that it is PD. Ankry (talk) 06:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete unless there is COM:OTRS permission. --Leoboudv (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment In this DR, the user claims ownership of all images by/of/for the Evansville library system. If the OTRS ticket issued after the DR is still valid, then this should be okay too.Ytoyoda (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The OTRS which closed the cited DR was from a gmail account and did not address the question of how the Library became the owner of the copyrights when it plainly was not the photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Personal work, not in use in any Wiki project. - Fma12 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Captain-tucker (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE as merely promotional. -- Túrelio (talk) 06:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
It's for the wikipedia page telling about the history of my company: https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wulff_Entre_Oy. Can't see what's the problem with the slogan since I'm writing about the company...-- Wulff Entre (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2014
- Delete as poster Motopark (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear violation of COM:ADVERT. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
画質が悪く、新たに Sakuranomiya-Bridge in front of Osaka-Castle at Night.jpgを Mc681 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: THe two are about the same quality and offer different angles. There is no reason not to keep both. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, very low quality, not realistically useable for anything. Per description page, pure advertisement. Lupo 06:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
This image was kept after Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by YHoshua, as Evansville public libraries images belonged to the uploader. However, this particular image is marked All Rights Reserved on Panoramio and the Panoramio uploader's relationship to the library system isn't explained. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I also have similar concerns about the following images:
- File:Lincolnshire.jpg from a real estate listing, appears to have been uploaded by the property's realtor/seller.
- File:Hayniescorner.jpg from a March 2008 magazine article.
- File:Oaklyn-green-roof.jpg - a higher resolution version is Green roofs for Healthy Cities.
- I assume other images are properly licensed, as nothing came up on reverse image search. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The OTRS message which closed the previous DR was from a gmail account, so it is confirms nothing. It does not address the question of how the Library has come to own the copyrights to the images, so even if the sender is not a fake, it does not prove anything. I suggest a DR for the remaining images on the same grounds. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to write here, but I just want this photo deleted (Tjin-A-Djie Family Crest.png) as per my reason stated.
I am the creator/up-loader of this image and I have uploaded a better version. This is an old version that needs to be removed as it is not apart of any article. Flotsamflip (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploaders request Captain-tucker (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in 10.2007 by Ernesto Linares (talk · contributions · Statistics), the uploader attributed the photo to "Gonzalo Maguiña" + "I'm the owner of the photo" = ? The photo itself was previously published (in high res) via http://www.worldisround.com/articles/261386/photo1.html (© 2000-2014 Worldisround) = http://photos.worldisround.com/photos/23/92/211_o.jpg (last modified: 2006), integrated in the article http://www.worldisround.com/articles/261386/text.html, "published 1/2/2006" by " Eduardo Alberto Rojas Turpaud" (who might be the [original] copyright owner). Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 14:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- The photo was taken by Gonzalo Maguiña. He is the owner and he gave me in 2007. He is member of an association called Brigada Naval Combatientes del Pacífico. The Brigada Naval restored the gun. --Ernesto Linares (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Per above nominating also:
- File:300 lb Armstrong MLR.jpg, here attributed to "Guillermo Lira"
- Guillermo Lira is a chilean citizen who taken the photo. He is my friend and he give the photo. --Ernesto Linares (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Additionally nominating:
- File:Cañón Grieve.jpg, thumb-size, mysterioulsy black bordered, most likely grabbed from Internet.
Gunnex (talk) 14:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment, nevertheless permissions via COM:OTRS from the original photographers are needed. Gunnex (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Owning a copy of the photo and owning the copyright are two very different things. IN order to restore these, we will need a license from the photographer using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Coat of arms of the owner of a vague registery that Rolando used to make his arms look official. [5] Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The depicted statue/sculpture was installed in 1948 by sculptor Coert Steynberg, who died only in 1982, whereby the sculpture is likely still copyrighted. The statue seems to be located in South-Africa, which regrettably has no freedom-of-panorama exception. All other photos of this monument and most files in Category:Coert Steynberg have the same problem. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Note: (if South Africa has no FoP until the following years) PD in South Africa (but not USA) in 2033 (death year+50 years pma), in USA (URAA copyright restoration, compulsory for all works of art outside the United States where Wikimedia Commons is based) in 2044 (publish+95 years) _ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
" This image was originally posted to Flickr by BioDivLibrary at http://flickr.com/photos/61021753@N02/7609253578. It was reviewed on 2014-05-30 18:50:42 by FlickreviewR, who found it to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0, which is compatible with the Commons. It is, however, not the same license as given above, and it is unknown whether that license ever was valid." The user's other uploads have been without proper source/license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep — @Ellin Beltz: Could you please provide some additional details about why you think this file has an improper source or license? As far as I can determine the file has an accurate source and proper license. The comment from the FlickreviewR bot is not a reason for deletion, in fact that statement by the FlickreviewR bot is one of the "green" status indicating that the source license is compatible with commons; and even if it wasn't, per Commons policy we could still host it (see Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag). I'm one of the two uploaders of this file, but I don't think my uploads can accurately be characterized as having "been without proper source/license." —RP88 18:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
This is most likely a housekeeping problem as the review bot was confused, and I'm not having any better luck figuring it out. I apologize if you were offended by comment, but searching your gallery found some other problems as stated above. Problems are usually problems with the templates, and not usually a judgement on the user. It is most likely that the file was tagged with an out of copyright tag as well as the cc-2.0 tag. We are clearing through a backlog of over 50,000 images without "source", please understand this review is needed due mostly to template errors. Thank you so much for your help resolving this issue. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't understand your "searching your gallery found some other problems as stated above" comment as I have received no notice regarding any image other than this one. Are you sure you are not confusing this image with some other image or confusing me with some other user? The review bot does not appear to have been confused by this image or recommended it for deletion. The tag it applied was {{User:FlickreviewR/reviewed-pass-change}}, which is a "pass" template, it's just reporting "FlickreviewR bot checked with Flickr and and this image's license on Flickr is compatible with Commons, but can't confirm that the current license tag is the same" (which makes sense, as the license on Flickr is CC-BY-2.0, but I applied the much more complex {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|cc-by-2.0|attribution=[http://biodiversitylibrary.org Biodiversity Heritage Library]|deathyear=1881}} license tag to this image. —RP88 20:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, the uploader of the image, the original one has some other problem uploads. You weren't the original uploader of the image to Wikimedia Commons. I think yes it can be hosted, but it needs proper licensing especially due to some of the other images in the gallery of the original uploader - who in good faith apparently uploaded a pile of wonderful natural history images - with incorrect licenses, wrong sources, and possible copyright problems. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- It sounds like you think there are problems with this file. Before I uploaded the larger resolution version I fixed all the problems I found, but since I did those fixes long before you nominated this file for deletion I can only assume that you found my fixes to be insufficient. However, I can't address your concerns if won't tell me what they are. What do you need? —RP88 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I did state the problem at the beginning the licenses that are on the page are at issue. The flickr reviewer found that the license on the page here and the license on the source page are not the same. I agree totally with you the image is old enough to be kept, but it's not a 3D work of art so any license other than "PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923" is contradictory to that license. Please don't be upset by the process, I don't want to delete this image any more than you do, but this is the only process we have to work through license conflicts. I really appreciate everything you did to fix this image template so far and will happily withdraw my nomination when it's complete. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- OK, now I think we've teased out the issue. If I understand you correctly you think that this work should have a license tag of {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|deathyear=1881}} while I think it should be {{Licensed-PD-Art|PD-old-auto-1923|cc-by-2.0|attribution=[http://biodiversitylibrary.org Biodiversity Heritage Library]|deathyear=1881}}. We both agree that the underlying work is in the public domain and that the correct tag for the underlying PD work is PD-old-auto-1923, we only disagree about whether to use PD-Art or Licensed-PD-Art to assert that the photograph can have no independent copyright. Here is the difference between PD-Art and Licensed-PD-Art:
- {{PD-Art}} is used when the photographer of the PD work claims their own copyright in the photo itself. However, via the PD-Art tag, Commons asserts that in some jurisdictions the photo will still be PD (for example, in the US per Bridgeman v. Corel) but possibly not PD in other countries (most notably the UK).
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is used when the photographer of the PD work claims their own copyright in the photo itself, but is nonetheless willing to offer the photo under a Commons compatible license. However, via the Licensed-PD-Art tag, Commons asserts that in some jurisdictions the photo will nonetheless be PD (for example, as before, the US) but in other countries (e.g. UK, etc.) it may not be PD but it can still be safely reused in one of these in these countries by complying with the terms of a free license.
- This case is specifically covered at the Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag page in the When should the PD-Art tag not be used? section under the "When the photograph has been released under a free license" bullet point, which says "When the photograph has been released under a free license: In such cases use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} or {{Licensed-PD-Art-two}} - this ensures the photograph is reusable anywhere in the world, including jurisdictions where such photographs are definitely or possibly copyrighted. Note that these templates explicitly say that in many jurisdictions the photograph is not copyrighted." —RP88 18:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
While I see the tag "The heirs of this work's copyright holder (usually the creator) have released it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.", I see no indication that Moros is the heir to Karl Gritschke (1923-1990), making this a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- I am a grandchild of Karl Gritschke. If you don't believe me, I can send you pictures, on whom you can see me with my grandfather.--Moros (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- For other photographs of my grandfather in WikiCommons, see also [6] --Moros (talk) 09:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- CommentI think it's possible to be a grandchild of someone and not their copyright heir at the same time. I'd suggest going to OTRS and filing a ticket concerning the license of this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- As the photograph wasn't previously published elsewhere, I am the copyright heir.--Moros (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think it would be best to provide this information at OTRS. In my family, my father took thousands of photos, I'm still alive. Were my daughter to upload one to Commons she could make the claim that because the photo was previously not published she owns it, but that would not be correct as I am still alive and was his legal heir. Commons editors would have no way to sort that out without additional data. I suggest strongly filling out the wee tiny form at OTRS and let their experienced editors loose on the problem. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: In order to restore this we will need a license from all (not just one) of the heirs of the photographer, using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Fork of this version of {{PD-HK}} in the wrong namespace and with the wrong name. One of two contributions by the creator, both of which appear to have been test edits. Storkk (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
"own work" 91.64.223.69 15:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Coat of arms of the owner of a vague registery that Rolando used to make his arms look official. [7] Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata - uploader's assertion of {{Own}} work in doubt. Additionally, there are scope issues. Uploader - if you are the copyright holder, please confirm that fact via COM:OTRS, and also please explain the potential educational utility of this photo (or, if it's a self-portrait, please use it - for example on your user page). Storkk (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
no copyright(저작권 침해) Eggmoon (talk) 08:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
no author, no source 91.64.223.69 15:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Xavier Veilhan is alive. There no FOP in South Korea. BrightRaven (talk) 15:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
"presumably military photographer" on an image with no source. Where did this come from if there is no source? Why should we assume a military photographer and give it a PD Gov license? Wherever the image actually came from (and we know it must exist somewhere as this is an upload of it) should be stated to assist in the determination of license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that this is not a photo taken by a friend -- if the friend was in the military, but not a military photographer, then it is not PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This is not in use, the blocked user did not provide a source. I can only find a vague mention on Geneanet. Seems to point to a vague branch of en:Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani. I believe that this is out of scope. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
The lack of description makes this image impossible to use. It also makes impossible to check whether there is any copyright infringement. BrightRaven (talk) 09:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio of 2d artwork not covered by fop in the UK and text content copyvio Oxyman (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Dubious "own work" (8 kb) 91.64.223.69 14:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" (9 KB, no EXIF) 91.64.223.69 14:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
too small size, no EXIF-data, unclear Motopark (talk) 09:15, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
poor quality image Sujay25 (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Image not found at source provided, unable to verify 3.0 license. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Uploader has most files marked "no source" and/or for deletion due to source/licensing issues. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader left message on talk page not here... Translated
Dear Colleague, Holly Lena is my creative pseudonym and blog is my own work, surprising Colleague do not write just to "police" Wikipedia. "Blog is called" ALTERNATIVE SINGLE BLOG VILLAGE Korolupy "at hollylena.blogspot.com /. Indeed, it is written from the same PC and same ID. already'm writing to discuss your getting on my nerves. - Lenka Lyalikoff (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: unused file, self-created artwork BrightRaven (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Je souhaiterais savoir si il est possible de supprimer la première version de cette image car les plaques d'immatriculation sont visibles. Merci pour votre réponse Lev. Anthony (talk) 09:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: First version hidden . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Shouldn't be public KJ0989 (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect motto (bucket shop heraldry style of family name instead of motto), incorrect crest, incorrect lambrequins. Compare with source. Slightly more correct SVG version available. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per reasons detailed above. This is not the real coat of arms of the Belgrano Family. - Fma12 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; previously used in hoax articles which have been deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
No FOP for sculptures in the US. BrightRaven (talk) 09:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-free press photo, not user's own work Evan-Amos (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Seems to be a published book by noted author. http://www.isabellamacdonaldalden.com/about.html http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Prince_of_Peace.html?id=SJ06mAEACAAJ We've got it on Wikisource, so clearly having the images on commons are appropriate. --GRuban (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per discussion and in use Natuur12 (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Again, i will point out that this file is a crude, childlike rendering presumably a work from the cited book. the copy is by a nonnotable artist, an editor who has been permabanned from the english WP for this type of completely inappropriate editing. the just concluded deletion was completely in error. I will take this and other files to deletion review if necessary. this should NOT BE HERE. I have removed it from the project pages it was used at as entirely inappropriate, part of a set of personal projects by the editor which are completely out of scope in their overall lack of fidelity to the source material. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Hmm. I could have sworn one of my links led to a list of illustrations of the book, some of which were well done and some of which were childlike drawings; but I seem to be wrong. The book is digitized here on Google Books and I can't find any childlike drawings in it; please someone prove me wrong. So, changing opinion to delete. --GRuban (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
- comment Category:Illustrations from Alden's Prince of Peace c. 1890 has that selection. they were all used at wikisource's "prince of peace", a very poorly transcribed version of the work. i had to remove the childlike drawings from this sourcetext, otherwise the childlike images were all closed as keep, as in use.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:48, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Images on source website are licensed " Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)". This image may be old enough to bypass that license, but it has insufficient information about it to know its actual source or age. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep. 1883 painting. If someone can read the author's name on the photograph at the bottom of this document, it can be added to the description page. But the author almost certainly died before 1944. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- If you put "{{Unknown}}, but similar to "V. Thomas" inscribed at lower right corner of full size painting from which this portrait was trimmed", that would work for the author. Thank you for changing the licenses from 3.0 to PD-old, that works really well. When the author has been (un)identified and the template is complete, I'll have no problem withdrawing this nomination, thank you so much for your help with fixing the template! Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope; previously used in hoax articles which have been deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:59, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
recent building JeanBono (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, there is FoP in Austria. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Austria has FoP. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
This map is redundant. The creator proposed to remove Civil Union and Domestic Partnership content from File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg, but the consensus went clearly against them here. Their solution was to make this map and then to consequently begin removing File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg from pages and replacing it with this map. This map was created to undermine consensus and it is grossly redundant of File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. It should be deleted. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I support this deletion request for the reasons stated above. Tinmanic (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep It is against Commons policy to remove files because one or more people believe they are inappropriate. The choice of which files to use is entirely up to the editors at each of the Wikipedias and Commons does not take sides in disputes such as this. If, indeed, a consensus exists that this file is not appropriate for one of the WPs, then that consensus must be enforced there, not here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point. Retracting my support since it's not necessary. Tinmanic (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: there is nothing wrong with having a separate map for partnerships and marriages. Consensus could change on Wikipedia so it wouldn't make sense to delete it. There is at least 1 user other than me on board so far. Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: If you weren't undermining consensus I would not have had to make this proposal (but now it seems misuse of images is not grounds for deleting images...) One person agreed with you, and then you went rogue and started posting your maps all over the place Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: there is nothing wrong with having a separate map for partnerships and marriages. Consensus could change on Wikipedia so it wouldn't make sense to delete it. There is at least 1 user other than me on board so far. Prcc27 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- You make a good point. Retracting my support since it's not necessary. Tinmanic (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Support - The image is not being used on Wikipedia anyways and given consensus is not likely to be used. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: (edit) Actually, it's still being used on 4 Spanish articles. Should the map be removed from those articles for the time being..? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note to all: In responding to DRs, please use the templates
- {{Vd}} = Delete or
- {{Vk}} = Keep
- "Support" and Oppose" are ambiguous -- do you support the image or the deletion?
- Also, it is against policy to place or remove images from WP articles during a DR. The DR results should be based on the facts at the time it was started, not on manipulations in either direction during the DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:09, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: Unfortunately, it has already been removed. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:03, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Although I do not approve of this map's usage in the article on Same-sex marriage in the United States, I do believe it is not the right thing to delete it. It could have potential future use (though I highly doubt it) and even then there is no reason to delete it. Usage however should be restricted and, like I said, I don't want to see it used on the article on SSM in the USA. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep for reasons I stated above. Prcc27 (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; previously used in hoax articles which have been deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; previously used in hoax articles which have been deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Stephany Aparcana Yarasca (talk · contribs)
[edit]Uploaded in a row on 27.06.2013. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, most likely all files grabbed from Internet.
- File:Bruja de cachiche.jpg
- File:Cerro de Saraja.jpg
- File:El pallar.jpg
- File:Linea de nazca.jpg
- File:El oasis de huacachina.jpg
- File:La achirana del inca.jpg
- File:Pallar.jpg
- File:Lineas de nazca.jpg
- File:La-achirana-del-inca.jpg
- File:Saraja.jpg
- File:La bruja de cachiche.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 10:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
René Sintès is dead in 1962. Copyright violation. 86.217.10.2 12:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Réponse de Dominique Sintès : Je suis l'auteur des photographies de la page Commons René Sintès, et suis la fille unique et ayant-droits directe de René Sintès. Je certifie sur l'honneur détenir les droits d'auteur sur son œuvre. Cordialement, Dominique Sintès (Tetra Seeklyn)
Deleted: Please provide a license using the procedure at Commons:OTRS. When that is doen, this will be restored automatically.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded on 21.05.2013. Unlikely to be own work: File:La paz 005.jpg previously published (even watermarked) via http://fotosdelapazer.blogspot.de/2010/12/asi-era-la-paz-por-el-ano-1900.html (2010) = http://www.imagebam.com/image/7ab68b112051752. File:Torres vilches 023a.JPG, painting by unknown artist. Both files related to es:Fernando María Torres Vilches. Historical photos/paintings may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
Gunnex (talk) 10:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope; previously used in hoax articles which have been deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 07:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saulnehemias (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most likely Flickrvios. Uploaded on 11.08.2012 at Flickr, 1 day later at Commons by Saulnehemias (talk · contributions · Statistics) who is also owner of the Flickr account. Both files related to en:Andrea Cardona who in 2010 became the first Central American woman to climb Mount Everest. For File:ACardonaEverest.jpg: Considering (e.g.) https://www.facebook.com/RumboalEverest/posts/119798878057755 or https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=385097218987&set=a.385096158987.165401.121911583987&type=1&theater (2010 via Andrea Cardona's Facebook, who is - btw - also member of [https://www.flickr.com/photos/59791827@N02/page1/ Flickr) unlikely work of "Saulnehemias". File:ACardona2012.jpg - a selfie by Andrea Cardona - was grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150728652008988&set=a.414162143987.191142.121911583987&type=1&theater (04.2012). The Flickrstream by Saulnehemias is full of copyrighted material concerning Andrea Cardona. Example: https://www.flickr.com/photos/20795615@N08/8454272618/ (02.2013) versus https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=121937263987&set=a.435318653987.238514.121911583987&type=3&theater (2009).
Nominating also:
uploaded here by SaulObando (talk · contributions · Statistics) (sock of Saulnehemias?) on 06.08.2012, taken also from Saulnehemias's Flickr (same procedure: 1 day delay), most likely grabbed from https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151079422518988&set=a.414162143987.191142.121911583987&type=1&theater (06.08.2012) or somewhere else.
Gunnex (talk) 16:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Das Photo ist offensichtlich kein Selfie, damit hat es einen anderen Urheber (Fotograf). (C) Fotosubjekt ist damit wohl eine Falschinformation, um den Verstoß gegen das Urheberrecht zu kaschieren. Jbergner (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Also unused personal photo -- out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
It's not free image in Turkish PD and creator is not User:Hasmens — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurice Flesier (talk • contribs) 2014-06-03T13:23:36 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
License is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs) 2014-06-04T15:33:19 (UTC)
- w:Template:Non-free album cover would be a license that works. Anyway to move this image to English Wikipedia?—SPESH531Other 20:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Louis Leygue is dead in 1992. No freedom of panorama in France. 82.124.61.61 22:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Louis Leygue is dead in 1992. No freedom of panorama in France. 82.124.61.61 22:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
license is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs) 2014-06-04T15:37:52 (UTC)
- w:Template:Non-free album cover would be a license that works. Anyway to move this image to English Wikipedia?—SPESH531Other 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
license is a lie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koavf (talk • contribs) 2014-06-04T15:37:16 (UTC)
- w:Template:Non-free album cover would be a license that works. Anyway to move this image to English Wikipedia?—SPESH531Other 20:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:16, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Chad Stokes Urmston personal request to remove this specific photo, another photo can be used — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.24.70 (talk • contribs) 2014-06-04T16:45:11 (UTC)
- I'm the uploader (though not the photographer), and, frankly don't see anything obviously wrong with the photo, ever since another kind soul removed the redeye. But I'd be willing to support if we really had "another photo that could be used"; there wasn't one at all at the time I uploaded it, and the only other one on commons right now is Chadurmston_photo_2013.JPG which is black and white, and a bit grainy. Could the subject please send us a better photo that he prefers, with a full release of rights? Among other things that would be evidence that this really was Chad Stokes Urmston personally requesting it - unfortunately there is such an animal as the internet impersonator. If we had such a better photo, I'd support the removal of this one as a favor to the subject; but not otherwise. --GRuban (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: We do not generally delete images at the request of the subject. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:15, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. Not a notable organization of Argentina. The file is not used in any Wiki project. - Fma12 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:17, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Isn't the Oscar statuette still under copyright? Lupo 15:51, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete this and any other similar ones, based on User Asclepias's link to a 9th Circuit ruling from 1991. Perhaps one or two could be uploaded locally under fair-use. Green Giant (talk) 19:55, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: 1941 copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deepakkumar805805 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Commons is not a personal photo gallery
~ Nahid Talk 06:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Érico Wouters msg 02:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Deepakkumar805805 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Jawahar Navodaya vidyalaya Mothuka Faridabad.jpg
- File:Jawahar Navodaya vidyalaya Mothuka Fbd.JPG
Amitie 10g (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 16:42, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Unsure whether it is really "below threshold of originality" so directing here. Ankry (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I think the flame design, which is the only non-typographical element in this logo, is simple enough to fall below the threshold. Now, this image from the same uploader might be another matter. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete I am not able to redraw the flame, therefore I think, that it surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not simple geometry. Should be uploaded under fair use at local wikis FASTILY 07:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as no permission (No permission since) because while the website this image was taken from has a very clear explanation of their licenses, the uploader did not provide a link to the image in situ showing the original uploader's license. This happened on multiple images, several of which have been deleted through Media missing permissions. Other images in his/her collection have the same issue. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Metadata shows source as Picasa software, source claimed own work, but other photos of this size were found on a blogspot page. This image was not found, but due to same size 720x960 (Facebook size) and lack of metadata, plus uploader's other uploads nominated for deletion, no source or no permission, I'm nominating this one under the COM:PRP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Uploader left message on the talk page: translate: 'I am the author of the blog on blogspot. So this is my own blog. That's what I have already dealt with on Wikipedia!. Some photos I published on Facebook. Where is the problem again?
Template: OTRS confirmation
The article uses material (https://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=11403234&oldid=11403224) released by the holder or the copyright owner (Lenka Lyalikoff) is licensed under the GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0. Permission has been delivered to the OTRS managed PR department Wikimedia under number 2,014,041,710,012,467th This template is not used for statement about ownership; inserted it only OTRS team after the e-mail info-cs@wikimedia.org receive a clear acknowledgment of the work release under that license.
- Lenka Lyalikoff (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get this restored FASTILY 07:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Sergiozaragoza. Uploaded in 05.2011, the photo appears on the front page of a printed magazine via http://www.periodicoexpress.com.mx/nota.php?id=243989 = http://www.periodicoexpress.com.mx/portada/20101129-p.jpg (edition from 11.2010).
The photo is cropped: The original frame appears to be http://www.elsoldenayarit.mx/site/images/notas/8646_ro.jpg or even this version, published (per url path) 1 month earlier than the upload at Commons via http://www.jorgevargas.com.mx/archivo/20110404/3754.htm (04.04.2011, 404, related wayback server currently down). Gunnex (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The photo was taken by me, I worked for Roberto Sandoval at his election for governor, the photograph was offered in full to the printed media and later taken for use for wikipedia cropping the original picture. Hope this clears out the confusion.--Sergiozaragoza (talk) 00:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS FASTILY 07:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded in 2010 by Mairol (talk · contributions · Statistics). Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, thumb size and cropped from listin.com.do (cache) = published via http://www.listin.com.do/entretenimiento/2007/12/29/42460/Aisha-Syed-Tuve-un-gran-ano (2007, Copyright 2010 LISTIN DIARIO - Todos los derechos reservados) = http://images2.listindiario.com/image/article/49/680x460/0/64E0AEF6-BD40-404C-AFB8-5BEA64D62889.jpeg (broken). Gunnex (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Wappen_Insheim.svg & File:Wappen_von_Insheim.png → Perhelion 23:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate of File:Wappen_von_Herxheim_bei_Landau.png & File:Wappen Herxheim bei Landau.svg → Perhelion 23:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
COM:PENIS. Mys_721tx (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep One of the few images depicting Frot. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 19:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion Krd 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Urheber: Hugo Oehme (1873-1952), d.h. der Urheber ist noch keine 70 Jahre tot und das Bild bis 2023 geschützt. Source: Own Work verschleiert den URV. Jbergner (talk) 16:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 14:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии. Фото ищется в Интернете до загрузки файла на Викисклад http://www.odnoklassniki.ru/nana.official/topics/936627790 Dogad75 (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Нет подтверждения заявленной свободной лицензии Dogad75 (talk) 08:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo; no evidence that uploader has rights to publish it // Gikü said done Thursday, 5 June 2014 15:13 (UTC) 15:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo. Or, at least, is not Ahmedds's work and the license tagging is wrong. There is a Logo on en:wiki flagged to be moved to Commons; I cannot evaluate if the tagging is correct or not. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arena_Corinthians_Logo.jpg)Legionarius (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 16:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Has complex shapes, definitely meets the threshold of originality. Also, see previous deletion request. // Gikü said done Thursday, 27 November 2014 20:44 (UTC) 20:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You could make any coat of arms into a banner. This seems out of scope unless this was actually used, of which we have no proof. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: File is not clearly out of scope. Any concerns should be added to talk page — billinghurst sDrewth 07:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I renominate the file because I consider it out of scope, due to it was one of the fantasy works that banned user Rolandodeynigo created as personal blasons. Furthermore, the file is not in use in any Wiki project. - Fma12 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
You could make any coat of arms into a banner. This seems out of scope unless this was actually used, of which we have no proof. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 10:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: File is not clearly out of scope. Concerns should be commented upon talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Túrelio as no permission (No permission since): which is fine, but there are two permissions tags on this page. I am changing it to nomination since it dates from around 1940 and to seek concensus. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The no permission tag was fine because the uploader had merely placed an empty PD-Art template without any parameter for the rationale. The year 1940 for this photo stated on the website of the Parliament of Canada [8] seems closer to reality than the guess of circa 1945-1952 stated on the website of Library and Archives Canada (LAC) [9]. The photographer Arthur Roy was apparently a regular photographer for the Parliament [10]. It can reasonably be thought that this photo was taken and made public at the beginning of, or at least during, the term of the photographed member of Parliament. The term of this member of Parliament was from 1940 to 1945. Also, the looks of the member on this photo is similar to what he looks in other photos published in newspapers around 1940. In any case, this photo is almost certainly from before 1949. Which makes it PD-Canada. And if it is indeed from before 1946 and if its copyright was not renewed in the United States, it is also PD-1996. I suppose we can take the year 1940 provided by the Parliament, as the photo was taken by its regular photographer. The only problem then is that the website of the Parliament includes a copyright sign. If it is assumed that the copyright notice is not merely a recent addition with the website reproduction but that it existed previously, then I suppose that the copyright status in the U.S. may depend if the copyright was renewed or not with the U.S. copyright office. We can note that the website of LAC states that the copyright of this photo is expired in Canada. So, the funny thing is that the website of the Parliament looks right about the year but mistaken about the copyright status in Canada, and the website of LAC sounds mistaken about the year but right about the copyright status in Canada. -- Asclepias (talk) 23:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep. I will leave any questions of the copyright status of the work within the U.S. to those more competent in that matter. However, Commons policy is explicit in stating that to be validly hosted here, the work must be free in both the originating country, as well as the U.S.
First, we must determine if the work were published under Crown copyright or not, and when the author/photographer died, as that affects which aspects of the law are relevant to the discussion. It is not clear to me whether or not this photo was taken by Arthur Roy under contract to Joseph Roy as a personal photographer (and later taken up by the Parliament website), or if the photographer was under contract to the House of Commons or any other Crown agency at the time of the work's creation.
- 1. If this work was not created under Crown contract, then it would seem that Section 6 of the Copyright Act would apply, being the life of the author, plus 50 years following the calendar year of the author's death.
- In this case, we would need to know the date of the author's death to determine the date of copyright expiration. So, if Arthur Roy died in 1963 or before, then this work could reasonably be said to be in the public domain. If he died after that year, then this work is still held under copyright.
- 2. If this work were made under contract to the Crown or one of its agencies, then the term of Copyright protection is instead determined under Section 12 of the Act, and the process to determine its copyright status is different.
- First of all, since Crown copyright in unpublished works can be said to be perpetual, it needs to be determined if this work were ever published in accordance with copyright law.
- In this case, simply displaying this photo to the public does not constitute publication, neither does communicating this photo to the public through telecommunication. So, for this work to have ever been published, copies of the work would have had to have been made available to the public.
- Copyright in this case would expire 50 years after the calender year of publication. So, if this photo ever was published in 1940, Crown Copyright would have expired in 1990.
- Since the Crown's prerogative would never have been used in this case, there is absolutely no reason to believe that the notwithstanding clause at the outset of Section 12 of the Copyright Act would be of any relevance to this case.
- 3. Sending a request to the relevant intellectual property office could shed some light on the issue here. However, I do not imagine that answers to the questions of whether or not this photo was taken under Crown or personal contract, when and how it were published (if ever), and when the author died would be readily available. Second, if this photo were covered under Crown copyright, and a date of publication can not be resolved, Crown agents do not have any authority to release works into the public domain ("Government of Canada employees do not have the legal authority to transfer Crown copyright"). The only way a Crown agency could release this work into the public domain would be through the Surplus Crown Assets Act, or by an Order-in-Council. So, likely the relevant IPO would not have the information we require, and even if they had the good intentions of telling us that they will allow free use, or anything else to the effect of releasing the image, while well-intentioned, is legally invalid.
- 4. Although we do have an explicit copyright notice, we also have an equally reliable source (in fact both sources are official Government of Canada websites) that explicitly state that copyright on this work has expired. In my mind these statements are essentially from the same official source as both are Crown agencies, and neither of them possess jurisdiction or competency in copyright matters. Given their equality in terms of reliability and expertise, and that they directly contradict each other, I feel that they should simply be ignored.
- 5. Keeping in mind the age of the work, and the question of whether or not the necessary information to make a definitive judgement even exist (or if the information does exist, the ability of anyone here to ascertain it), I feel that this work can be reasonably kept in the absence of further evidence. Regarding COM:PCP, I feel that the threshold of doubt is not met here since we know who the author is, know roughly when the work was created, know the relevant legal arguments, and we know what information is required to make a definitive decision. We also know that such information most likely does not exist, or the resources required to find this information are beyond the ability of editors here. In this way, the principle reason (copyright notice) behind the deletion request has been rendered invalid, and it would be unreasonable to delete this image based on simply conjecturing that the author died after 1963, or that the work was made under contract to the Crown, or that the work was never published, etc. Therefore, it would be unreasonable to delete this image based on the evidence presented. trackratte (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record :
- About photographs other than Crown photographs. Your paragraph 1 is wrong. You probably looked in a recent version of the law, but on the matter of expiration of copyright on photographs, the changes made to the law in 1997 (which entered into force in 1999 on this matter) and in 2012 were not retroactive on this point, so one must look instead at the version of the law that was in force in the relevant year for the particular photograph. As this is a photograph that was created circa 1940, one must look at the pre-1999 version, which provided that the copyright on a photograph expired 50 years after the creation of the photograph. That gives a simple rule to apply, which is very practical, and the consequence is that all photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. A photograph created in 1940 entered the public domain in Canada in 1991 and it stays in the public domain. Later changes to the law did not change the copyright status of this photograph. This is reflected in the Commons tag PD-Canada.
- About your paragraph 2, even if a mention of "copyright House of Commons" is considered a "Crown copyright", the photograph in question here was certainly published. The oval shape of this version hints that it was taken from a collage of the photographs of the members. Copies of such collages were printed and made available. Digging into the LAC website, some images can be found. For example a reproduction of a printed version of the poster picturing the 1947 members is there. This is only to show the printed aspect. The 1942 members are shown there. This version includes the photograph discussed here. If we look in the independent members section near the bottom center, the photograph is there. We can note that the collage is dated 1942, but the photos themselves can have been created and published in the previous years. We can note also that the collage is identified "Photographic Stores Limited", which may or may not mean something about the photos. Maybe Arthur Roy was into contract with this company and the company was into contract with the HoC. Or maybe Roy was into direct contract with the HoC and then the HoC allowed the company to use the photographs. But none of this matters for the end result, as the photograph was created circa 1940 and almost certainly published at least before 1943, so it is in the public domain in Canada either way.
- About your paragraph 4, I guess the House of Commons would be upset about being called a Crown agency. It is clearly not that.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record :
- I'm not entirely sure what you are attempting to debate here.
- I never said the House of Commons was a Crown agency. I simply laid out what information would be required "If this work were made under contract to the Crown or one of its agencies" (of which Parliamentary staffs certainly are). And I don't have a thorough working knowledge of superseded legislation, which is also why I stated "then it would seem that Section 6 of the Copyright Act would apply". And for publication, it is the proof of publication as defined in law that is usually the sticking point here, as proof of production is not the same as proof of publication.
- HOC status is an interesting point. Within the house you have Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, and all sitting MPs must swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown. Parliamentary staffs and officers are agents of the Crown, and Parliament itself (of which the HOC is a part) is a Crown agency in the sense that the Crown itself forms part of the institution. And obviously all of the ministers of the Crown are themselves agents of the Crown. MP's salaries and pensions are also paid for by the Crown. So, in my mind it would be safe to say that Section 12 would apply to contracts and employment with the HOC, but I would have to see if there is any relevant case-law which could be dug up. Or maybe you already have some relevant sources you could share. trackratte (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- What I debated is that you stated : "First, we must determine if the work were published under Crown copyright or not, and when the author/photographer died". But the death of the author is irrelevant for photographs created before 1949, and whether the photograph was under Crown copyright or not makes no difference in the end because there is evidence that it was both created and published between 1940 and 1942, so anyway it entered the public domain in Canada between 1991 and 1993. As such, it would elude the URAA if required but the remaining question is whether the U.S. formalities were met independently. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- The earliest official set I can find in the 1993 version of the Copyright Act, where Section 10 does state that it is the year the photograph was taken, the remainder of that calendar year, plus 50 years. Section 10 of the Act was repealed in 2012. However, these versions are irrelevant. I cannot find an official copy, but it seems that the relevant law here would be Section 7 of the 1921 Act. It's actually fairly remarkable how little has changed, with Section 10 of the 1922 Act being essentially mirrored in the present Section 12. Under Section 5 of the 1922 Act, copyright remains for the life of the author, plus 50 years after the calender year of his death. Section 7 does provide an exception for photographs though, to be instead 50 years from the taking of the photograph. So, you are absolutely right that date of death of the author is irrelevant in this case.
"The term of protection for photographs depends on the author. There are three possible terms of protection:
- When the author is a natural person (as opposed to a business entity, such as a corporation), the copyright lasts for 50 years after the author dies.
- If the author of a photograph is a corporation, the copyright lasts 50 years after the 'making of the initial negative or plate from which the photograph was derived or, if there is no negative or plate, of the initial photograph.'
- If the majority of voting shares in a corporate owner are owned by a natural person who would have qualified as the author of the photograph, the copyright lasts 50 years after the photographer dies.
Before 1994, photographs had a copyright term of 50 years after creation of the original negative. Under a special transitional rule, a 50-year term is provided for photographs first created between January 1, 1994, through December 31, 1998".
So it seems to me that the 50-year from creation rule applies from at least 1922 up to 1998. From 1998-2012, if the author of a photograph was a natural person then the normal 50-years after the year of death term would apply. If the author were a corporation then the normal creation+50 rule would apply. After 2012, the distinction between artistic works and photographs disappears. So, production+50 for all photographs, except for non-corporate authored photographs from 1998 to present. trackratte (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
- For the present deletion request, this boils down to the principle mentioned earlier: all non-Crown photographs created before 1949 are in the public domain in Canada. The changes to the Copyright Act that affected post-1948 photographs did not affect pre-1949 photographs and have no effect on the photo discussed in this DR. (If your point was to note that the template PD-Canada should include something about pre-2012 corporate authored photographs, it was mentioned a few times, but the template is fully protected, so it can't be fixed. As a workaround, notes were added in the permission field, as in this example. It's less important now that, since 2012, photos do not enter the public domain for this reason anymore. Your historical account looks correct, except maybe the last bit, which I think should be after 2012 the distinction disappears, so it's year of author's death + 50 for non-anonymous and non-Crown works. That said, it's not that a discussion about aspects not directly related to this DR can't be interesting, but it should be taken to the page Village pump/Copyright or another general discussion page. Some discussion about the consequences of the 2012 changes was started there at the time, but it did not attract many comments.) -- Asclepias (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Apprerantly okey Natuur12 (talk) 21:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MotherForker (talk · contribs)
[edit]Videos in Argentina are protected by copyright for 50 years, as per Template:PD-AR-Anonymous (photos are 25 years as per Template:PD-Argentina). These videos are works of Televisión Pública Argentina, or other entities, for which we do not have explicit permission to use their materials under CC licencing. A couple of the videos utilise PD reasoning (Art. 28, Ley 11723) which although allowing for reuse and redistribution, does not allow for remixing (modification and derivative works), so are there also invalid for hosting on Commons. Hopefully the uploader will be able to obtain some OTRS permission from the TV station for these videos, so will ask that this is left open for a couple of weeks longer than normal, as a courtesy. ~
- File:Cristina.fernandez.ogv
- File:Lopez.Murphy.ogv
- File:Cavallo.ogv
- File:Martinez.de.ogv
- File:Menem.reforma.ogv
- File:De.la.rua.ogv
- File:NUNCA MAS.ogv
- File:ObjetivoPapelPrensa.ogv
- File:GuerradeMalvinas.ogv
- File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv
- File:PeronenlaCGT-1973-TVPublica.ogv
- File:Asuncion.alfonsin.1983.ogv
russavia (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep Those videos are taken from the "Bicentennial Collection", a set of 14 DVDs issued about November 2010 by RTA (Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E.), the federal agency in charge of public audiovisual media, including Televisión Pública and LRA Radio Nacional, and therefore lawful copyright owner. The set was released under a CC-by-sa 2.5 license. I don´t have a physical copy of the set, but have just asked for a scan. Cinabrium (talk) 20:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
- Comment A friend has just sent me a scanned copy of the DVD-set box. It reads:
RTA Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E.
Colección del bicentenario - Primera Edición
Este proyecto fue creado y realizado por RTA S.E., sus autoridades y más de doscientos trabajadores y trabajadoras de la Radio Nacional y la Televisión Pública [...]
La Colección del Bicentenario es una producción integral de Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E. (RTA S.E.) editada bajo licencia Creative Commons by-sa Argentina 2.5. La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro. RTA S.E. promueve la copia y difusión de los contenidos de esta colección. Primera Edición, Octubre 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
- Loosely translated, it means: "This project was created and made by RTA S.E., their authorities and more than two hundred workers of National Radio and Public TV [...] The Bicentennial Collection is an integral production of Radio y Televisión Argentina S.E. (RTA S.E.) published under Creative Commons by-sa Argentina 2.5 license. The distribuition of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations. RTA S.E. encourages copying and distributing the contents of this collection. First Edition, October 2010, Buenos Aires, Argentina."
- Cinabrium (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Kept: . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 20:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MotherForker (talk · contribs)
[edit]The caveat with the licence "The distribuition of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations" means they cant be hosted on commons.
- File:Cristina.fernandez.ogv
- File:Lopez.Murphy.ogv
- File:Cavallo.ogv
- File:Martinez.de.ogv
- File:Menem.reforma.ogv
- File:NUNCA MAS.ogv
- File:ObjetivoPapelPrensa.ogv
- File:GuerradeMalvinas.ogv
- File:Informe.final.dictadura.1983.ogv
- File:PeronenlaCGT-1973-TVPublica.ogv
- File:Asuncion.alfonsin.1983.ogv
LGA talkedits 03:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It is clear that my closure above was incorrect. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
deleted: Not free as in COM:L --PierreSelim (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
As pointed out to me, the files had been upload with a CC-BY-SA 2.5 AR licence without any doubt by the RTA which has collaborated with Wikimedia Argentina to do so. Some DVDs have been distributed for free to institution which doesn't change the licence or it scope. Please read this page before closing. . --PierreSelim (talk) 13:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Pierre, it wouldn't surprise me a bit if the writer of the page you cite (and perhaps WP Argentina as well) does not understand that a license reading "The distribution of this edition is free of charge and intended for non-profit organizations" is not compatible with WP and Commons.
- It seems to me that files taken from the DVD set referenced above are not properly licensed for Commons or WP. If, subsequently, the RTA has published the files with a CC-BY-SA license without the "intended for non-profit organizations" restriction, then we can keep them. In order to make that decision, we will need sources with that license for each of the files. We certainly cannot depend on the piece you cite, as it is contradicted by the only source that we actually have. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Jim, I invite you to have a look at the comment I wrote on PierreSelim's talk page. It's in French (you can read French, I think). I will try to explain here in English (it takes me much more time to write in English) in relation to what you wrote.
- The page cited was written by the former Executive Director of Wikimedia Argentina, Beatriz Busaniche, who is also the uploader whose uploads are targeted by the present deletion request. She has a Master degree in Intellectual Property and she was a participant to Creative Commons Argentina. She was aware of RTA's process during the period of the licensing. She probably knows more about CC licenses in Argentina than a fair proportion of us and I would think twice before dismissing her work in relation with this licensing, to instead accept a deletion request apparently made in a few seconds without thinking. (Sidenote: I know that some of LGA's work in some other DRs is sometimes unjustly criticized by some people. That doesn't mean he's always right. It just happens that IMHO this request here is wrong.)
- What you imply is that the RTA executives and legal counsels are incompetents who can't write a notice. I watched video interviews of the RTA team members who worked on the project and I watched the video of Wikimedia's 2010 GLAM conference in France, where among other examples the then-new RTA licensing was presented and explained. What I understand is that the RTA successively: a) developed a well-thought approach about how they wanted to manage their archival material, and decided for an approach prioritizing unrestricted release when possible ; b) selected and identified the items which they officially released under CC-by-sa Ar-2.5 ; and c) produced a compilation of some (or most, or all) that CC-by-sa material on a series of 14 DVDs also labeled, of course, with the same CC-by-sa Ar-2.5 licence.
- In the press conference when the RTA team launched the publication of the DVD sets, they explained their approach. (Video interviews of the team members with different media are available on the net.) They don't look like a group of morons. They sound like they know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it. The president of RTA insists on their approach of democratization of their audio and video archives, based on the notion that it belongs to everybody, and how it is important for them that this not only be made available, but made available in a manner that is "libre" (free, as in unrestricted), so it can be reused widely. I don't see why there would be any difficulty with the printed mention of the CC license on the boxes. It is plain, straightforward and clear as pure water. It states plainly that the material is under the license CC-by-sa Ar-2.5. They even add that the RTA encourages its copy and diffusion. Their objective is that the works will be propagated, it is not to make money with selling copies. Obviously, they can pay the manufacture of a certain limited number of copies. I don't know how many they had made, it does not matter. Their mode of diffusion is to provide the original copies to schools, libraries, a network of NPOs, so, that way and from there, it is available to the people and the material can be further copied and reused and diffused by all people who want to reuse it under the free license. Totally cool method, I think. This seems like a fairly good method of diffusion adapted for cultural institutions who want to diffuse freely licensed material. It makes perfectly good use of free licensing. It is nothing that should surprise us. It's a fine example of what cultural institutions, or for that matter any licensor, can do, and actually do, to make effective use of free licenses to diffuse their works.
- This can easily happen in other contexts too. A local historian in a small community may decide to write an account of local history and make it available under a free license. His objective doesn't have to be to make money, just to have his work preserved, made freely available and, hopefully, reused by as many people as possible. He may decide to print only a couple hundred original material copies of his freely licensed work and distribute those book copies to libraries and schools and volunteer history associations in his area. He would write a notice: "I publish this work under the license CC-by-sa 3.0. I printed and distributed to non-profit associations the 200 original copies I could pay for. I encourage the further copy and diffusion under the free license." For his free license to be valid, nothing forces an author to distribute material copies to commercial bookstores and groceries. Nothing in a CC license forces the licensor to manufacture 10 billion material copies of the licensed work and to provide a material copy to each and every human being on the planet, under penalty of invalidity of the license. He may distribute original copies only to his family members and friends, or to any special or non special group of people as he wants. It does not change or affect the license. The free license is still there to be used by anybody, because that's what free licenses are made for. The nominator of the deletion request confuses the licensing of a work and the mode of distribution of material copies. He imagines a problem where there is none. I'm all in favor of questioning licenses when they deserve to be, but here we're not in presence of some webmaster who might have written a bad license. There is nothing dubious in the RTA's project and licensing under CC-by-sa Ar-2.5. The notice just has to be read for exactly what it says clearly and unsurprisingly in plain words used in their plain meaning. The notice is already clear when read by itself. But, if possible, it is even more obvious after having looked at the context.
- Furthermore, the RTA is certainly well aware that their material is reused under CC-by-sa (as it should, because that's exactly the objective), Wikimedia Argentina has publicly congratulated them for it and given media interviews about it, the files are under CC-by-sa on Commons since four years, it is a notorious example of a successful result of campaigns by the free licensing movements and by Wikimedia to have institutions put material under free licenses, and as far as I could find the RTA has never indicated that their license had been misunderstood or misused or that they changed their mind.
- So, here we have clearly freely licensed material, precious items which we are justly proud to have and present as examples, from exactly the type of project we campaign for and the type of licensing we encourage cultural institutions to use. And, one fine day, on a whim, some user who passes by decides to do a hit-and-run request to have all those fine files go *poof*. This feels like being in a museum and seeing some nightwatchman about to throw some of the old and notorious artifacts in the garbage because he doesn't pay attention and to him they look like pieces of scrap left behind by visitors.
- I know what the deletion nominator will say. He will say that just because he imagines a doubt, slight as it is, we should delete the items, or other people than him should go through the trouble of obtaining one more confirmation of this license. As tempting as it may sound to drown the fish that way by suggesting to ask a permission, it is not the proper approach in this case. It's a main feature of free licenses that they don't need further permissions. What we have here is not some newbie's undocumented upload from some dubious source. We have stable items, with a known free license, from a known source, from a known project, managed by responsible people. The pretense for the deletion request is not serious. What would one be supposed to ask from the RTA? "Dear RTA, please send to Wikimedia one more confirmation of the already clear license, that you have widely publicized, of which Wikimedia is already well informed and has already publicly thanked you for. We're asking this only because one of our users can't read one of the notices and believes that you are all idiots." If the nominator wants to ask such confirmation to reassure himself, let him do it. If he manages to obtain a reply, we'll archive it. But when there is really no doubt, it is not responsible from him to ask other people to get confirmation for each and every file Commons hosts. In the meantime, in a case like this, there's no reason to delete the files.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Asclepias so why not just contact the RTA and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified for sure, would just be so much easier and then there would be a record of it on file ? LGA talkedits 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why not? Asclepias has actually already given some points on that. You seem to believe that OTRS is a no-cost system, which would make it always advantagous to use. This is in my opinion not true. First, of course, there is the cost imputed to the OTRS volunteers on permissions@ (but well, I’ve learnt to not expect much consideration for us). But there is also the cost to the OTRS perception & reputation: the more you force folks to use it for no or dubious reason, the less it will be understood when it is necessary. I already know some folks who shoot an email to OTRS for every upload for no reason, just because they have come to internalize that their files would be safer with a {{PermissionOTRS}} sticker slapped on it − whatever that means. The cost to Commons as a society is not null − I would argue that OTRS-zealousness promotes a culture of more suspicion than is healthy on one side, and of doubt of the soundness and thus legitimacy of this institution. And finally, as Asclepias has mentionned, it is a feature of free licences to be resusable without further permission − because permission was already given.
- To finish on a less lyric tone. Suppose we get an email on OTRS from RTA. Very well. But what does « from RTA » means? Does the person at the other end really knows shat they’re talking about? Shouldn't we ask for their legal department? But wait, do they have the authority to confirm this? Shouldn’t we ask their director? I am not trying to strawman or slipperyslope this conversation, jus st to point out that « ask Groß Inßtitution » to shoot an email to OTRS does not mean much in itself. Jean-Fred (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Asclepias so why not just contact the RTA and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified for sure, would just be so much easier and then there would be a record of it on file ? LGA talkedits 22:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- As made clear here : "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". Nothing on that linked page changes that. LGA talkedits 00:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment I have reverted my closure, it doesn't mean someone else can't close it as delete. And I'm sorry but as I have speak spanish for years, I prefer not to cast any opinion on this because I have doubt both ways. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Pierre, I would always defer to someone who speaks the relevant language in a difficult situation, but doesn't your uncertainty mean "delete" -- that's our rule when there is significant doubt. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- When I have doubt on my personal judgement I generally prefer to have time to think about the question, now after doing more research my doubts are more on the pro deletions arguments than the other way. This release under CC-BY-SA was a much advertised actions by Wikimedia Argentina such as presentation at Wikimania, or the blog post I've linked before. To me it looks like RTA and WMAR has been in contact and I'm pretty sure they were informed of what CC-BY-SA means. Then without the entire text I'm having quite some doubts, citations are often misleading. --PierreSelim (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Great files with clear free license. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment I sent an email to Wikimedia Argentina contact email to let them know of this discussion − someone there might have valuable input. Jean-Fred (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Why ? would it have been more productive to send RTA the email and ask them to email the OTRS team in order that it is clarified. LGA talkedits 22:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- o_ô It took me something like two minutes to retrieve the WMAR email address on Meta & shoot them an email. Not sure I would even find RTA contact page in that time. And yeah, I can totally see myself shoot a random email to whatever-general-contact in a such a big organisation saying “Hey, there’s this deletion request about your files, xoxo” ; while as WMAR taked to them, I believe it is fair to suppose they have the right contact ready-by, and that they would be more than happy to contact RTA on behalf of the Commons community for clarification (speaking the language might help too). Jean-Fred (talk) 07:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- o_ô It took me something like two minutes to retrieve the WMAR email address on Meta & shoot them an email. Not sure I would even find RTA contact page in that time. And yeah, I can totally see myself shoot a random email to whatever-general-contact
- Keep. Thanks Jean-Fred for contacting Wikimedia Argentina. I believe this discussion stems from a misunderstanding generated by the loose translation. Radio y Televisión Argentina SE clearly states that the collection is published under a CC-by-sa license. The following line refers not to the contents but to the physical DVDs from where Cinabrium copied the statement (la presente edición). But the key issue here is that in any case "La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro" does not mean that the distribution of the DVDs is intended at nonprofits in the sense that it shouldn't happen otherwise, it merely says that that series of DVDs (the edición) are aimed to be distributed for free among non-profit organizations. There should be no controversy because there is simply no contradiction. Let me further clarify that the local usage of instituciones sin fines de lucro is loosely used as an equivalent for what we would here call GLAM rather than their tax status or legal definition. --Galio (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification but google translates it as "The distribution of this edition is free and is intended for nonprofit institutions", so we do need the RTA to confirm with OTRS what they mean. LGA talkedits 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- I never thought that being a native speaker I'd have to discuss Spanish with Google Translate ;). The world intended is not present in Spanish and there is no possible cognate there, it talks instead about the presente edición (i.e. these DVD boxes) being destinada to be distributed among nonprofits. Destinada has no legal connotation and, even if one could force a legal reading, it has nothing to do with what intended can mean. It is the previous line that refers to the Colección del Bicentenario. And, in case of doubt, there is a third line that adds clarity for it makes no mention to any kind of gratuity clause: "RTA promotes the copy and dissemination of the contents of this collection". It is clear what RTA meant: a collection of videos under CC-by-sa whose copy and dissemination it promotes, and a [physical] edition of DVDs to be distributed among nonprofits, as if Wikimedia Argentina edited a collection of Wikipedia articles aimed to be distributed in schools. --Galio (talk) 23:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Conflicto de edición) Dear LGA: it might be a language issue, but so far I'm looking at the Merrian-Webster dictionary definition of intend and I don't find the word exclusive, exclusively or any synonym. In this sense, I can't understand why the goal to distribute that edition (that is, that specific set of DVDs) to nonprofite institutions with a CC-BY-SA license is in any way confusing or self-contradictory. In any case, the Spanish sentence "La distribución de la presente edición es gratuita y está destinada a instituciones sin fines de lucro", does not mean at all, and can't be understand, as "... is intended exclusively to nonprofits.". And please understand that this is a multilingual project, that many non-English speakers make a great effort to join these kind of discussions, and that is just not reasonable to argue that "as google translation of your non-English sentence is confusing I need an OTRS confirmation, otherwise I will delete your file". I'm sorry but in that case you will have to assume good faith and trust those colleagues that can understand as native speakers that non-English language. Patricio (talk) 23:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- The more time we spend analysing words and translating them back and forth the more it goes to show that there is doubt over the exact nature of the release and therefore we do need to have it clarified and the more people say it's not necessary the more I have to wonder why they don't want to ask the RTA what is it they are worried of ? I go back to the COM:UNDEL request where it was made clear that "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". I am happy to tag each file with {{Npd}} if that would help. LGA talkedits 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- LGA, it is you who is translating back and forth. We just explain what this text in Spanish talks about (and yes, we are forced to translate it to English if we intend to discuss anything in Commons with a slight chance of being considered). But since you are suggesting we don't want to ask RTA for a written statement I'll be clear enough: No, we'd prefer not to ask RTA for a further statement. Why, you may ask? Because the licensing terms are not ambiguous. We Wikimedians should be the first interested in keeping the licensing conditions free, and we —Beatriz, in fact— invested a lot of time in dealing with RTA's Legal team to ensure this collection could be published under CC-by-sa as the copyright notice clearly states. I don't know how else can we explain that there is no contradiction in that statement and that, what is more, the two sentences refer to different things. We are discussing a line that doesn't refer to the files being challenged here! We have a working relationship with RTA and we as Wikimedia Argentina can certainly ask for an email to have an OTRS ticket —if Commons admins decide that is necessary, then please avoid deleting these files until such text exists. But we fear that RTA will find it difficult to understand what the problem is supposed to be at all, since there is no ambiguity in the terms we are discussing, and if we insist it will be us, the most interested in keeping these licensing terms, the ones to drive the case back to Legal and open a Pandora box that right now is closed and it is not necessary to open. Am I clear? It's up to Commons' admins judgement. --Galio (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- The more time we spend analysing words and translating them back and forth the more it goes to show that there is doubt over the exact nature of the release and therefore we do need to have it clarified and the more people say it's not necessary the more I have to wonder why they don't want to ask the RTA what is it they are worried of ? I go back to the COM:UNDEL request where it was made clear that "COM:OTRS permission is necessary to clarify the ambiguous licensing terms". I am happy to tag each file with {{Npd}} if that would help. LGA talkedits 00:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for that clarification but google translates it as "The distribution of this edition is free and is intended for nonprofit institutions", so we do need the RTA to confirm with OTRS what they mean. LGA talkedits 21:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
- KEEP per Galio's several comments during this deletion discussion. There is a clearly free license with additionally included information about the method of distribution of the material that has nothing to do with the copyright status. Additionally, the uploaders of the content are well aware of the license status and that it is appropriate for Commons. There is no reason to burden the group with further requests for clarification. FloNight♥♥♥ 04:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The license is crystal clear in Spanish. Also, this is the result of a joint effort by WA and TA. LGA, I understand you're taking your time to ensure that Commons is free of non-legal material. However, in this case in particular, your use of Google Translator and the need to contact an instituion after they have clearly licensed their material are simply unnecessary. You can't just make a case out of something just because such license is dubious by means of an automated translation. Alhen .::··¨ 11:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep If I burn Wikipedia in some DVDs and then say that those DVDs I burnt are gifts intended for non-profit organizations, does Wikipedia magically become NC? --Racso (talk) 15:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Licensing terms are clear, so there is no need of any OTRS permission here. --Jaqen (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
- kept. The files were relesed under a free license. The releasing organization can intend the content to whatever matter they prefer, but the chosen license is the best proof. Don't assume there lawers are stupid. matanya • talk 21:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)