Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/06/21
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
Quiero borrar la imagen porque el resto de las demás permanecerán borradas hasta que las vuelva a subir a esta pàgina. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 21:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- File:Hack Attack.jpg
- File:Season Premiere.jpg
- File:D.S.I.png
- File:Fuga..jpg
- File:Hack Attack Logo.jpg
- Delete I would say that yes, these are out of scope and should be deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted files which are either obvious copyvios or out of scope, or both. One logo remaining. Yann (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted the rest of them, as out of scope. It's all one non-notable individual promoting their non-notable YouTube channel. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per bottom two statements (by Yann and I) Sven Manguard Wha? 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad syntax (Category= instead of Category:) ; there is a right redirect Tangopaso (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
{{duplicate|File:Bigender_pride.png}} This file is an exact duplicate of File:Bigender_pride.png as listed in the "source" field of the page. Trankuility (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deelted as duplicate — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo is not released under a free license — clear copyvio Saqib (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
DW of a magazine. JurgenNL (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyright violation Ankry (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
No proof of own work, most images are scans of magazines
- File:Roberto do Carmo Entraîneur Brésilien Portugais.jpg
- File:Robertinho Entraîneur brésilien portugais.jpg
- File:Robertinho ponta direita.jpg
- File:Robertinho Kazma.jpg
- File:Kazma Club Robertinho.jpg
- File:Robertinho Ponta.jpg
- File:Robertinho Seleção 82.jpg
- File:Robertinho Ponta Direita.jpg
- File:Robertinho.jpg
- File:Robertinho Entraîneur.jpg
- File:Robertinho Coach.jpg
- File:Robertinho Roberto Oliveira Gonçalves do Carmo.jpg
JurgenNL (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyright violation Ankry (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Not published by author. Wrong license. Ronn (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, likely copyright violation. Kameraad Pjotr 18:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright violation. JuTa 10:49, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The two images has been extracted: Mippzon (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep The original image needs to be here to preserve the upload history and original validation by FlickrBot. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- My bad, still learning how Commons work. Then keep it! //Mippzon (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nom withdrawn Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
personal unused photo Steinsplitter (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fake logo, there's no references that say that these were the colors of the CODE Sfs90 (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Fake logo, out of COMMONS:SCOPE Sfs90 (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Violación de derechos de autor. El logo de TV Azteca es marca registrada. Vichock (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too simple to meet the treshold of originality, so, the file is {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Violación de derechos de autor. El logo de TV Azteca es marca registrada. Vichock (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too simple to meet the treshold of originality, so, the file is {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Original is in colour. Replaced by The Eternal Chimera by Armand Point pastel c. 1895.jpg Philafrenzy (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CARLOSPOLONIO (talk · contribs)
[edit]All these images are out of scope and/or copyright violations.
- File:MI BANNER AMARILLAS INTERNET 17.jpg
- File:MI BANNER AMARILLAS INTERNET 18.jpg
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD FOTO.jpg
- File:THE PERFECT APPS.jpg
- File:PERFECT APPS.png
- File:MERRY CHRITSMAS.jpg
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET LOGO.png
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD.png
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD ICONO.jpg
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD PLANTILLA.png
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD EN ESPAÑOL.jpg
- File:AMARILLAS INTERNET PUBLICIDAD EN INGLES.jpg
- File:MI BANNER VISITA MI FanPage.jpg
- File:FUEGO AZUL.jpg
- File:Feliz Navidad Carlos Polonio.jpg
- File:MI BANNER AZUL.jpg
- File:BANNER ROJO.jpg
- File:BANNER AMARILLAS INTERNET.jpg
JuTa 11:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:02, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prasadfalke (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos.
_Trekking.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lionel okito (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images, out of scope.
- File:Léo II.jpg
- File:Copie de 1538838 245999765563577 957234321 n.jpg
- File:Léo Fataki.jpg
- File:42 Leo.jpg
- File:Léo Okito.jpg
- File:IMAG0144.jpg
- File:Wiki Lionel.jpg
- File:Lionel Okito. jpg.jpg
JurgenNL (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:EDGAR CERECEDO
[edit]All unused personal images, out of scope.
- File:CERECEDO 01.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 02.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 03.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 04.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 05.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 06.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 07.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 08.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 09.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 10.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 11.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 12.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 13.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 14.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 15.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 16.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 17.jpg
- File:CERECEDO 18.jpg
JuTa 17:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas
[edit]All unused private images, out of scope.
- File:Beutiful.JPG
- File:Bien Fino.JPG
- File:Brillando.JPG
- File:Cool.JPG
- File:Del Mundo.JPG
- File:Disc.JPG
- File:El Fuerte.JPG
- File:El Mejor.JPG
- File:El Poder.JPG
- File:Filoteao.JPG
- File:Internacional.JPG
- File:Lucido.JPG
- File:Original.JPG
- File:Partys.JPG
- File:Pc.JPG
- File:Rapero.JPG
- File:Totalidad.JPG
- File:Wow.JPG
JuTa 17:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas
[edit]These images looking pretty much out of scope.
- File:Certificado a Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas - El Verdadero Sonidista (Volume 8).jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 50.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 51.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 52.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 53.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 54.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 55.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 56.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 57.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 58.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 59.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 60.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas 61.jpg
- File:Dj Kevin El Rompe Discotekas.JPG
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JuTa 21:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete and block user please: The user uploaded these Out of project scope files again, ignoring the warnings. --Amitie 10g (talk) 06:20, 17 August 2014 (UTC)- Delete and block user per Amitie 10g. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
All uploads nuked, and user blocked. INeverCry 01:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Wrong syntax (Catégory instead of Category). There is a right category Category:Maison de l'Art Nouveau Tangopaso (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed: I actually created the other one mentionned after I realized the mistake. I did ask to remove the present category, though. Thank you and sorry for the annoyance. Regards, --Daehan (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . Krd 09:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A Tineye search returned multiple uses of this image before it was uploaded to Commons, see << http://bookofmormonspeaks.blogspot.com "Interfaith-Big.gif" ... Crawled on 2010-05-22 >> Some are larger, some smaller, but all show that image was in use before uploaded here making this a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A series of devotional images unlikely to be own work of uploader. Several look like screenshots, others appear older (line-art) style, while still more are airbrush style, the last two are logos copied from the website of the organization http://www.brahmakumaris.org/
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (23).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (22).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (21).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (20).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (19).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (18).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (17).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (16).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (15).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (14).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (13).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (12).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (11).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (10).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (9).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (8).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (7).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (6).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (5).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (4).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (3).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (2).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1 (1).jpg
- File:Golden-age-brahma-kumaris-1.jpg
- File:Brahma-kumaris-3.jpg
- File:Brahma-kumaris-1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Not allowed on Commons, see Commons:Currency#The_Netherlands
- File:Vijf gulden munt 1989.jpg
- File:Dubbeltje Wilhelmina 1936.jpg
- File:Dubbeltje Wilhelmina 1948.jpg
- File:Kwartje Wilhelmina 1948.jpg
- File:Kwartje Juliana 1962.jpg
- File:Dubbeltje Juliana 1967.jpg
- File:Kwartje Beatrix 1992.jpg
- File:Dubbeltje Beatrix 1992.jpg
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE, as unused personal shot, eventually meant as attack-image. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality and unused. Does not provide value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Self created work, very small and unused. Uploaders only contribution. Mippzon (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mrbatman93 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Lili Caps Des Gaillards Story.jpg
- File:Titi Caps Des Gaillards Story.jpg
- File:Jailson Caps avec BLeCaps.jpg
- File:BLeCaps en 2013.jpg
- File:Photo De BLeCaps.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused image. It is not possible to see why this image provide value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal image. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 37.5.4.253 07:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
hay un error Rogaza (talk) 07:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Krd 09:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manish Pathak (Web Designer) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal pics outside scope.
- File:Manish Pathak posing for a Fablous pic while he was in Auckland, New Zealand..jpg
- File:Manish Pathak in his Wedding Dress (Sherwani).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Selfpromotion - here and at en:WP. No educational or informational use.
Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Redarazzouk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused private shnapshots. Out of scope.
JuTa 16:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't want this listed in "Featured picture candidates". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnus (talk • contribs) 2014-06-21T23:13:52 (UTC)
Kept: by Krd JuTa 11:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Why? --Agamemnus (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
- See here. --JuTa 18:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
according to EXIFː copyright violation 37.5.4.253 09:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
File needs an OTRS ticket (according to EXIF its a file from 2004) 37.5.4.253 10:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:otrs McZusatz (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
File needs a permission from the author 37.5.4.253 10:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:otrs McZusatz (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Cover of a book, so OTRS needed Shev123 (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:otrs McZusatz (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio of (probably) non-uploader modern artwork. Advertising-suspected-only account on jawp.
- File:Atagoyama-3.jpg
- File:Chiritotechin-3.jpg
- File:Fukutora-3.jpg
- File:Oiranneko001.jpg
- File:Ichizu.jpg
- File:Oiran doucyuu.jpg
- File:Bentenkozou1.jpg
- File:Doteno oroku-3.jpg
- File:Kanjincyou-3.jpg
- File:Fukusuke001.jpg
- File:Fukusukeneko002.jpg
- File:Chibihuku kishi.jpg
- File:Sukeroku-3.jpg
- File:Gongorou-3.jpg
--Vantey (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:otrs needed McZusatz (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Images of Kitten2000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyvio of (probably) non-uploader modern artwork. Advertising-suspected-only account on jawp. Kitten2000 is editing an article the same as Scatman (talk · contribs), suspected Scatman's sockpuppet.
- File:ヨーロピアンな招き猫たち.jpg
- File:エーゲ海の猫たち.jpg
- File:「憧れ」.jpg
- File:化粧坂少将.jpg
- File:ぽっちゃり警報発令.jpg
- File:ヨーロピアンな猫たち.jpg
- File:Ｆｌｏｗｅｒ.jpg
- File:しだらななさう.jpg
- File:紅葉狩.png
--Vantey (talk) 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: com:otrs McZusatz (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
© 2014 StarNow Limited - New Zealand company number 1584653 http://www.starnow.co.uk/darrentough 37.5.4.253 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Gleiches Bild in Alter Tönung bearbeitet Güterchronist (talk) 11:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Lageplan Vorwerk Malter.JPG McZusatz (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable person. Not used on any projects. Suspected advertising. Out of scope. Vantey (talk) 11:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A complex unused logo. Likely not own work of the uploader as stated an out of scope. JuTa 11:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
unused private snapshot. Out of scope. JuTa 11:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio : cover of an LP record / copie d'une pochette de disque 33 tours Habertix (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio : cover of an LP record / copie d'une pochette de disque 33 tours Habertix (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio : cover of an LP record / copie d'une pochette de disque 33 tours Habertix (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Tiny image, we have SVGs of this flag. Fry1989 eh? 17:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Flag_of_the_Republic_of_China.svg McZusatz (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned/replaced by File:File-Tactix.svg. Leyo 22:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Same image is found elsewhere on the net (http://s.rbbtoday.com/article/img/2006/10/22/35112/18251.html), and thus is unlikely to be own work Michitaro (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
At the least, OTRS needed; also promotion, used to illustrate an en.wp article which was twice speedily deleted. Ymblanter (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
No informational value. Photo of no realistic educational value. Kusurija (talk) 05:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality image, unused and the uploaders only contribution. Does not provide value to Commons. Mippzon (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
low quality screen shot McZusatz (talk) 07:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Seems copyvio Saqib (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-free image Saqib (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-free image Saqib (talk) 09:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Non-useful Saqib (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
low quality Antemister (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted trademark Saqib (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- No objection to the deletion with all due respectd.--Judgefloro (talk) 09:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
one ist enough, the others color fit better to the official one Antemister (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation Saqib (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by JuTa as no license. The uploader adden a {{PD-author}} later. I see the "public domain" statement on the source website. But I don't understand why this painting of a man died 1977 should be public domain. The painting was created proparbly uring the 1960s or 70s. The painter still has the copyright in most countries. Might it be {{PD-US-no-notice}} or similar? But this has to checked and verified. JuTa 10:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Great question, JuTA. I have visited federal facilities in the Dallas, Texas area that have U.S.-government-commissioned portraits of Maceo Smith (a career federal civil servant) prominently displayed, including ones that look very much (if not identical to?) this portrait. While I don't know the process for verifying this image's federal provenance, I am quite confident that BlackPast.org (a reputable website akin to Wikipedia itself, edited by university professors) was able to confirm this image's U.S. government creation before captioning as they did. This is an elegant portrait of a great leader who didn't even have a Wikipedia article until the other day. Is there any way this image can be preserved for use on Wikipedia? Thanks so much, 68.203.162.103 14:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I suspect that Blackpast does not understand that while the image may be PD, the painting itself is not. Portraits painted for the US government by artists who are not actually employees of the government (that is, actually on the payroll), are emphatically not PD. This includes, for example, several official portraits of US presidents. It is possible that this portrait is PD-no-notice. It is also possible that the artist has released his or her copyright. But, unless either of those can be proven beyond a significant doubt, this must not remain in view. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
no permission 37.5.4.253 10:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
completely replaced Antemister (talk) 10:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, has superior SVG version.
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
completely replaced Antemister (talk) 10:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unused, has superior SVG version.
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't find any evidence that modern postage stamps of Luxembourg are exempt from copyright, so presumably this reproduction of a 1998 issue is non-free. Psychonaut (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hungary's term of copyright is the life of the author + 70 years, making it very plausible that this 1935 photo is still under copyright. Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hungary's term of copyright is the life of the author + 70 years, making it very plausible that this 1930 photo is still under copyright. Psychonaut (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hungary's term of copyright is the life of the author + 70 years, making it plausible that this artwork (probably from the 1920s) is still under copyright. Psychonaut (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Hungary's term of copyright is the life of the author + 70 years, making it very plausible that this 1930 photo is still under copyright. Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work. This is a modern certificate with copyrightable elements. Psychonaut (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
svg available Antemister (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Flag_of_Ogaden_National_Liberation_Front(2).svg McZusatz (talk) 12:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Also nominated:
These images depict a modern Hungarian train livery with copyrightable elements. There is no evidence that the artwork has been freely licensed, and freedom of panorama in Hungary applies only to works of art which are permanently installed. — Psychonaut (talk) 10:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- It's permanently installed; a video from 2013. --178.164.163.103 15:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even if the livery is permanently applied to the train, the train itself is not "erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place". In fact, for much of the time each day the train will be indoors at a station or parked in a depot to which the public has no access. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the stations are outdoor facilities in Hungary. Calm down and provide a source on your concerns, because it's clear that your hypothetical argument isn't valid. --178.164.163.103 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are many other photographs of this same train showing it indoors in Budapest, such as at Nyugati pályaudvar or at Keleti pályaudvar. If the train is sometimes exhibited indoors, then it cannot possibly be permanently exhibited outdoors. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- My Chetnik friend, you found two images showing the two largest railway stations in Hungary. Anyway, Nyugati and Keleti are only semi-indoor buildings, majority of the tracks are indoor (see Nyugati map etc.). Your linked image is misleading. --178.164.163.103 16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm well acquainted with both stations, thanks. I can personally confirm that the locomotive is fully indoors in both stations, though you need not take my word for it, as a simple web search will turn up many other photos whose wide angle leaves no doubt whatsoever (e.g. [1]). —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- My Chetnik friend, you found two images showing the two largest railway stations in Hungary. Anyway, Nyugati and Keleti are only semi-indoor buildings, majority of the tracks are indoor (see Nyugati map etc.). Your linked image is misleading. --178.164.163.103 16:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- There are many other photographs of this same train showing it indoors in Budapest, such as at Nyugati pályaudvar or at Keleti pályaudvar. If the train is sometimes exhibited indoors, then it cannot possibly be permanently exhibited outdoors. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Most of the stations are outdoor facilities in Hungary. Calm down and provide a source on your concerns, because it's clear that your hypothetical argument isn't valid. --178.164.163.103 15:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Even if the livery is permanently applied to the train, the train itself is not "erected with a permanent character outdoors in a public place". In fact, for much of the time each day the train will be indoors at a station or parked in a depot to which the public has no access. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Are there any court cases, where it has been ruled that artwork permanently installed on movable objects is not covered by FOP? I can see rulings go both ways. If no rulings are known, I would prefer to Keep this image. If we would proactively remove all images that might possibly be a problem, there would be no images left on commons. --Sebari (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- The original Hungarian law says that freedom of panorama applies to "art [which is] outdoors, in a public place, [and] permanently installed" ("A szabadban, nyilvános helyen, állandó jelleggel felállított képzőművészeti"). A modern painting, for example, may be "permanently installed" on its canvas, but I don't think you could seriously argue that freedom of panorama applies just because you happen to photograph it outdoors when it is being transported from building to building. Clearly "permanently installed" refers to "outdoors, in a public place", not to the durable nature of the artwork itself, or else the law would apply to almost every non-perishable work of art which had ever spent the slightest amount of time outside.
- I don't believe, then, that is case is nebulous. But even if it is, and you're right that court rulings could "go both ways", Commons:PCP mandates that we err on the side of caution. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I think it is beyond a significant doubt that "permanently installed" means "in one place". The entire history of FOP is to allow photographs and movies of public places without copyright problems -- a moving train is no problem -- just wait for it to go. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
uploaded to wrong user account Iain999 (talk) 11:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: This is a wonderful image. The comment given is not a reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A screenshot of unknown source. Looks to me like out of scope. JuTa 11:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
superseeded by File:ADR 5.2.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Proposed replacement does not have "5.2", which is a specifically included detail of the regulation and of the cited ref image. DMacks (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is a fully equivalent png version (File:ADR 5.2 noir.png)--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Now that a higher-quality equivalent has been noted. DMacks (talk) 14:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- There is a fully equivalent png version (File:ADR 5.2 noir.png)--Kopiersperre (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, orphaned. --Leyo 21:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photograph outside scope. Athough categorized, its nothing peculiar or historic to be in that category. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 12:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
A better, more accurate version has been uploaded with the name "Geology of the Cape Peninsula 1.jpg" Oggmus (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time, please simply upload the new version over the old one. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
unused user portrait 37.5.4.253 12:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad quality scan of File:Caspiosoma 1.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work". Here's a version 0f 2009 http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20091031/business/business3.html 37.5.4.253 14:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Billinghurst as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: While this may be an artwork that was sponsored by the American federal government, what is the evidence that it is the work of an employee of the US Government. Most such works would be undertaken by artists. If it is a work of US Govt employee, then that should be clearly stated by whom. Generally artists names are provided for such works.
Converted by me to DR, as the original image is on Commns since 2006. While the nominator's rationale is likely correct, the deletion merits a bit of discussion IMO. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Túrelio. I entirely agree that it should have a discussion, thanks for converting. I hope that someone can find the relevant information and we can put this one back on the shelf. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Since this is a post-1989 work, no notice is required. It is well established that copyrights to art created for the Federal government remain in the hands of the artist -- that includes several official White House presidential portraits. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Without an author name, and a date of 1960s, this image may not be able to be hosted on Commons because the license is incorrect for the lack of source and date of image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Post 1957, India is 60 years after publication. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This image appears in several places on [google search]. It was apparently used as a YouTube channel image prior to this upload which has no metadata, no author and source is given as being the art department of the school making it probably a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- OTRS Permission received--Sphilbrick (talk) 14:17, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Two images of a group of people in India. Both are stated to be from around 1940, no photographer name, both read "Source Brahma Kumaris Art Department - Indian Headquarters & Author Brahma Kumaris". Obviously the image was not taken by the organization. While the images may be old enough to be retained, the sourcing and licensing is incorrect and the images may be COM:COPYVIOs. User's other uploads included a poster from the organization's website, three photographs of people, none with correct license and the logo of the organization.
- File:Om Mandali group on an outing at Clifton beach Karachi.tif
- File:Anti-Om Mandali Committee Picketing Hyderabad Sind India.tif
I am aware of the {{PD-India}} tag, but there is sufficient ambiguity between that license and these files for the nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Please don't delete. The explanation I have behind these images is that they were taken back when the organisation started by people who are almost certainly now deceased, and who are not known. When the organisation relocated from Karachi in May 1950 a lot of 'the history' was lost. However some material were taken when they relocated, including these 2 photo's. The organisation has preserved them, and they have eventually been scanned and hard copies are freely distributed at the headquarters in Rajastan, India by the Art Department. On request soft copies were provided to me. The images relate directly to the text in the article (not that this point is that relevant i guess...)
- Please accept my apology for the inaccuaracies in my uploads. I am getting my head around the specifics and think most aspects can be rectified. This File:Anti-Om Mandali Committee Picketing Hyderabad Sind India.tif image is almost certainly taken in 1938, based on the information I have gleaned from the history while contributing to the article.
- I don't think the inaccuracies in the other uploads by this user (me!) is a valid reason to remove these images. Plus those are the shortcomings of a new user, and many of those problems will be rectified. Your patience and guidance are greatly appreciated :-) Regards Danh108 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept Pre-1958 India is 50 years from creation, so these are certainly PD. It would be nice to have the missing details, but it is not essential to our keeping them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The non-free Simpsons artwork here is a main focus of the photograph, which was taken in San Francisco. However, in the United States freedom of panorama extends only to architectural works, not vehicle liveries. Psychonaut (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The main focus of this photograph is the aircraft -- Category:N949WP (aircraft). It never existed outside of this livery. The Simpson copyrighted characters in these photographs are de minimis and they should not be cropped to focus solely on those characters. russavia (talk) 16:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- According to Commons:De minimis, de minimis does not apply when "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." A primary intent in taking the photo, or at least for uploading here, is clearly to show the Simpsons livery—the filename even makes specific reference to it. (The fact that there is no other example of this aircraft would be an excellent argument for fair use on another project, though.) —Psychonaut (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: 1137 of this aircraft have been delivered. While I recognize the desire for completeness in our photographs of aircraft models, I see no pressing reason to set aside the copyright questions here to keep an image of one example of the huge fleet. The Simpsons are not dm. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The source is not reliable. Its look like like a fan group. This same photo is under a copyright license on a different Flickr group. Saqib (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Its invalid request because the link which has provided to remove the image is run by some unofficial source which has not been operated for long time and this image is already being approved by FlickreviewR and its has been uploaded on Official Abdul Qadir Patel Filkr profile--Faizanalivarya (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Both photos were uploaded on the same day (March 21, 2009) so its very likely that owner of both Flickr group is same. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Further, metadata of this photo tells that author is actually you (Faizan Ali Varya) which means you're the owner of this so-called "official Abdul Qadir Patel Flickr page". Please confirm whether its true or not? --Saqib (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Both photos were uploaded on the same day (March 21, 2009) so its very likely that owner of both Flickr group is same. --Saqib (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Might be a copyright violation. The other photos in the source album are licensed as all rights reserved. The uploader also had copyright violations in the past. Besides, the photo was uploaded on the 2 Flickr accounts on the same day, making it rather questionable. The 2 accounts might be owned by the same person. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Certainly true since this upload has violated copyrights and its highly disputed it should be deleted ; Speedy Deletion request by uploader--Faizanalivarya (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Faizanalivarya: No need to put it for speedy deletion. This will be done in due time. Thanks, Yann (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader is not "Brahma Kumaris" that is an organization, thus the license is incorrect. This logo appears all over the organization's website, there is no indication of permission here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
{{Bad JPG}}, replaced by File:Bicolor flag of Tamil Eelam.svg. Leyo 22:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 13:02, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo of unknown software, maybe copivio? I am not sure. Slick (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Seems to be taken from http://www.southernbelize.com/vil_sanantonio.html. Kaldari (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
The file, uploaded in 2009, was taken from a website and claimed to be CC-BY-SA 3.0. But I don't see a CC declaration anywhere on that website. Quite to the contrary, it says here that all rights are reserved. So this is a copyvio to be deleted. It was the user's only upload and only edit, so perhaps he simply didn't understand about licensing, as is often (too often) the case. Rosenzweig τ 21:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 13:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of much use. There are other images of Red Berenson that are far superior. Also, I am the creator and uploader of this image (despite the change of username), which I created at a time when there weren't any other freely licensed images of Berenson on Commons. At this point, I don't think this file serves any purpose and I believe it should be deleted. Michael Barera (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too blurry to be of much use. There are other images of Brady Hoke that are far superior. Also, I am the creator and uploader of this image, which I created at a time when there weren't any other freely licensed images of Hoke on Commons. At this point, I don't think this file serves any purpose and I believe it should be deleted. Michael Barera (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
KennyYudashi and a suspected sockpuppet of his (see the open SPI for behavioral evidence) have uploaded several obvious copyvio images of this and other landmarks in China. There has been no response to these past issues (or any discussion at all evidencing an understanding of our content policies). Furthermore, this image has minimal EXIF, suggesting it may have been lifted from another source. I also suspect, but am not certain, that this same file was previously uploaded by w:User:Isis Lai and deleted as a copyvio. Regardless, I believe this file should be deleted per COM:PRP, as there exists significant doubt as to the validity of the claim that KennyYudashi holds the copyright to this image. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of much use. There are other images of Red Berenson that are far superior. Also, I am the creator and uploader of this image, which I created at a time when there weren't any other freely licensed images of Berenson on Commons. At this point, I don't think this file serves any purpose and I believe it should be deleted. Michael Barera (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad definition — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakás (talk • contribs) 2014-06-20T12:59:03 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Krd 13:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
copy of image:Oldupai pano HairyScram didlevels labelled.jpg with lower resolution and quality Stas (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution, practically unuseable. Humatiel (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. A higher resolution photo would be preferable, but it's high enough that I can see a general idea of what the bottle and logo look like. --Holdek (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination OK then. --Humatiel (talk) 04:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Aside from the problem stated above, its a copyvio of the distinctive logo. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no license given on Gahetna.nl, so this image can't be used on Commons. JurgenNL (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of much use. There are other images of Red Berenson that are far superior. Also, I am the creator and uploader of this image (despite the change of username), which I created at a time when there weren't any other freely licensed images of Berenson on Commons. At this point, I don't think this file serves any purpose and I believe it should be deleted. Michael Barera (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Uploader Requst / Replaced by File:HD W Kragenspiegel HFla.svg Flor!an (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hoteles City (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims. The uploader claims to have created all these images personally. However, the few files that have metadata indicate that they were in fact created by several different people. File:Cityexpress monterrey aeropuerto fachada.jpg, File:Cityjunior mexicali fachada.jpg and File:Cityexpress tijuana rio fachada.jpg were created by Carlos Hahn. File:Cityexpress villahermosa fachada.jpg was created by Salvador Mariña Coy. File:Cityexpress playa del carmen fachada.jpg and File:Cityjunior cancun fachada.jpg were created by Oscar Zarate. If the copyright is held by Hoteles City and the uploader is a representative of the company with authority to speak on behalf of the company on copyright matters, that needs to be confirmed via e-mail from an @hotelescity.com e-mail address to our permission archive. The uploader also needs to provide truthful source and authorship information for the files. The uploader should also change their username to something identifying them as an individual, rather than one implying shared use within the company.
- File:Citysuites san luis potosi fachada.jpg
- File:Citysuites anzures fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior mexicali fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior tijuana otay fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior veracruz fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior guadalajara periferico sur fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior ciudad juarez fachada.jpg
- File:Cityjunior cancun fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress villahermosa fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress veracruz fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress zacatecas fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress tijuana rio fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress tula fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress torreon fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress queretaro jurica fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress san jose costa rica fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress playa del carmen fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress pozarica fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress nogales fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress minatitlan fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress monterrey aeropuerto fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress merida fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress los mochis fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress ciudad de mexico insurgentes sur fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress ciudad de mexico ebc reforma fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress durango fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress culiacan fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress coatzacoalcos fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress ciudad del carmen fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress campeche fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress ciudad de mexico reforma el angel fachada 2.jpg
- File:Logos 3marcas.jpg
- File:Hoteles city express minatitlan fachada.jpg
- File:Cityexpress buenavista fachada noche.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files from ''www.congreso.es''
[edit]- File:Proclamacionfelipevi4.jpg
- File:Discurso de Felipe VI.jpg
- File:Proclamacionfelipevi5.jpg
- File:Proclamacionfelipevi5 - edit.jpg
- File:Koro garmendia galbete 01.jpg
- File:Manuel Fraga 1977-1979.jpg
The license of www.congreso.es (in Spanish) says:
- The information avalible in the web site www.congreso.es can be reused and is granted the public access without conditions. In order to re-use the information, the following conditions must be followed:
- a) Not alter the contents of the information.
- b) Not distort the meaning of the information.
- c) Always quote the source of the information.
- d) State the date of the latest update of the information.
- e) Follow the public access and non-exclusivity principles.
I think this license is not compatible with CC-BY-SA since it says Not alter the contents of the information. I was told the same in the Commons' Village Pump in Spanish. Thanks. --Albertojuanse (talk) 09:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete derivatives are not allowed --Jaqen (talk) 13:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Comment It's doubtful wether "que el contenido de la información no sea alterado" actually means ND, of if it's just an equivalent to the second point "Not distort the meaning of the information. which is more related to moral rights and non copyright restrictions. In fact, the later restriction is usual in other sources that are seen as free in Commons.
- Furthermore, "información" doesn't mean data as in an image file. This restriction seems more aplicable to text.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I guess we must have take on consideration both statements, and not only one of them. Anyway, if the license refers to the text and not to the images, we must presume that the pictures have all rights reserved, since nothing else is said on the web. Albertojuanse (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- PS_offtopic: Pere prlpz, if his legal notice refers only to text but not to the images, ¿does it happen the same with this one? Beacause there is a lot of users -incluing me- that use this license as CC-BY-SA. Thanks Albertojuanse (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think the license refers to both, but "alters the content of the information" doesn't seem to apply to an image. "Changing the information" doesn't seem to make a derivative work; it seems to change it's meaning. For example, if you change caption from "Proclamation of the king" to "The king being judged for treason", you are changing information, but if you crop a person from the image to make a portrait of him, you aren't changing. Anyway, it's quite obscure to me.
- About gencat license, the main difference is that gencat doesn't include this restriction nor the last one. It just includes b) c) and d) points here. Probably you have a point in the fact that conditions a) and e) have been willingly supressed in gencat but they are present in Congress, so this difference is expected to be significative and actually change license - to something incompatible with CC-BY-SA or not.--Pere prlpz (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- One comment, in Spanish legislation of intelectual property the concept of public domain doesnt have the posibility of the vacantly modification of the work. Even if a picture is on the public domain the picture can't be modificated vacantly (if that is prejudicial to the legitimate interests of the author or threaten his reputation) and the author has to be recognised. And that's to protect the moral rights of the article 14 of the law.
- Furthermore, "información" doesn't mean data as in an image file. This restriction seems more aplicable to text.--Pere prlpz (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Real Decreto Legislativo 1/1996, de 12 de abril, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley de Propiedad Intelectual, regularizando, aclarando y armonizando las disposiciones legales vigentes sobre la materia.
http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/Admin/rdleg1-1996.l1t4.html#l1t4
TÍTULO IV
Dominio público
Artículo 41 Condiciones para la utilización de las obras en dominio público
La extinción de los derechos de explotación de las obras determinará su paso al dominio público.
Las obras de dominio público podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la autoría y la integridad de la obra, en los términos previstos en los apartados 3.º y 4.º del artículo 14.
TÍTULO II
Sujeto, objeto y contenido
CAPÍTULO III
Contenido SECCIÓN 1
Derecho moral
Artículo 14 Contenido y características del derecho moral
Corresponden al autor los siguientes derechos irrenunciables e inalienables:
1.º Decidir si su obra ha de ser divulgada y en qué forma.
2.º Determinar si tal divulgación ha de hacerse con su nombre, bajo seudónimo o signo, o anónimamente.
3.º Exigir el reconocimiento de su condición de autor de la obra.
4.º Exigir el respeto a la integridad de la obra e impedir cualquier deformación, modificación, alteración o atentado contra ella que suponga perjuicio a sus legítimos intereses o menoscabo a su reputación.
5.º Modificar la obra respetando los derechos adquiridos por terceros y las exigencias de protección de bienes de interés cultural.
6.º Retirar la obra del comercio, por cambio de sus convicciones intelectuales o morales, previa indemnización de daños y perjuicios a los titulares de derechos de explotación.
Si, posteriormente, el autor decide reemprender la explotación de su obra deberá ofrecer preferentemente los correspondientes derechos al anterior titular de los mismos y en condiciones razonablemente similares a las originarias.
7.º Acceder al ejemplar único o raro de la obra cuando se halle en poder de otro, a fin de ejercitar el derecho de divulgación o cualquier otro que le corresponda.
Este derecho no permitirá exigir el desplazamiento de la obra y el acceso a la misma se llevará a efecto en el lugar y forma que ocasionen menos incomodidades al poseedor, al que se indemnizará, en su caso, por los daños y perjuicios que se le irroguen. --CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 18:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, I think this files are not in Public Domain at all, but have all the rights reserved. Anyway, this moral rights allow to use and modify the work for any purpose while it does not implies harm to his/her legitimate rights or detriment to his/her reputation (mientras no suponga perjuicio a sus legítimos intereses o menoscabo a su reputación). But, I think, this files are not in Public Domain at all, since the license says nothing about them. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ask the author or photographer directly, please! Then you can adapt the license. File:Discurso de Felipe VI.jpg is a very good historical photo for Wikipedia-articles! If Felipe is really a king for all, he will find a solution, ask him too. Maybe he contributes some more photos to Commons in future. Show him the (overcrowded) Category:Barack Obama. Category:Felipe VI of Spain in 2014 is nearly empty. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think I lost his phone number, because last time we met I was sooo nervous, so I don't think I will be able to talk neither with the author neither with His Majesty. So sorry. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- LudwigSebastianMicheler The File:DiscursodeFelipeVI.jpg belongs to the Congress of Spain (Congreso de los Diputados) and I get the picture from here so I will send an email to the Congress right now about this.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- E-Mails are a chance, thanks too. And a link to the discussion here (+ from es-WP-disc.?) --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, thanks. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- LudwigSebastianMicheler The File:DiscursodeFelipeVI.jpg belongs to the Congress of Spain (Congreso de los Diputados) and I get the picture from here so I will send an email to the Congress right now about this.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think I lost his phone number, because last time we met I was sooo nervous, so I don't think I will be able to talk neither with the author neither with His Majesty. So sorry. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Ask the author or photographer directly, please! Then you can adapt the license. File:Discurso de Felipe VI.jpg is a very good historical photo for Wikipedia-articles! If Felipe is really a king for all, he will find a solution, ask him too. Maybe he contributes some more photos to Commons in future. Show him the (overcrowded) Category:Barack Obama. Category:Felipe VI of Spain in 2014 is nearly empty. --LudwigSebastianMicheler (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, CarlosVdeHabsburgo, I think this files are not in Public Domain at all, but have all the rights reserved. Anyway, this moral rights allow to use and modify the work for any purpose while it does not implies harm to his/her legitimate rights or detriment to his/her reputation (mientras no suponga perjuicio a sus legítimos intereses o menoscabo a su reputación). But, I think, this files are not in Public Domain at all, since the license says nothing about them. Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
This pictures are not in the public domain, but we can use because the website about congreso says this:
Español: Reutilización de información
La información disponible en el sitio web www.congreso.es es susceptible de reutilización y es puesta a disposición del público sin sujeción a condiciones. La reutilización de los contenidos debe cumplir los siguientes criterios:
a) Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado.
b) Que no se desnaturalice el sentido de la información.
c) Que se cite la fuente.
d) Que se mencione la fecha de la última actualización.
e) Que siga un principio de acceso publico y de no exclusividad
English: Reusing this file —Not an official translation for legal equivalence.—
The information avalible in the web site www.congreso.es can be reused and is granted the public access without conditions. In order to re-use the information, the following conditions must be followed:
a) Not alter the contents of the information.
b) Not distort the meaning of the information.
c) Always quote the source of the information.
d) State the date of the latest update of the information.
e) Follow the public access and non-exclusivity principles.
(website disclaimer in spanish) --Altorrijos (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, this license is the problem, so there are two point of view up to know, Altorrijos:
- If this license refers only to the information (text), the images have all the rights reserved.
- If this license include the images as information (not only text), it says Not alter the contents of the information, wich is not compatible with CC-BY-SA.
- That is the problem. Is not that easy. Albertojuanse (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Ok, I will note my opinion on this here because I also had problems in the past with this very same license. From what I'm reading, the confusion is, on the one hand, whether the license applies to only information in the website (that is, excluding images) or includes images as well; and on the other hand, should images be included, what does that license exactly mean with "Que el contenido de la información no sea alterado/That the information content is not altered". My opinion on this, not in any way binding of course, is as follows:
- For the first issue, I believe images ARE included within the license, because of the following:
- 1. The license states that "La información disponible en el sitio web www.congreso.es es susceptible de reutilización y es puesta a disposición del público sin sujeción a condiciones. La reutilización de los contenidos debe cumplir los siguientes criterios" (Translation: The information available in the www.congreso.es web site can be reused and is made available to the public without conditions. The re-use of the contents must follow the following criteria). So while initially talking about information, in then talks about the site's contents, not differentiating between what could be information and images.
- 2. If images were to be treated differently, shouldn't a different, separate license be present for them? It is common practise for web sites using images to put such a license for them, so if there is not a separate one for them, and considering that the license present talks about the site's contents, then it must be intended for them.
- 3. The treatment used here for the website's contents is similar than what used on the Spanish Government official website (see the English version as well), the latter being used on this wikipedia as a copyright license for images (see this).
- For the first issue, I believe images ARE included within the license, because of the following:
- Thus, for all of these I believe we should consider that images ARE indeed included within the Legal Notice of the www.congreso.es website, and thus abide by its license.
- Now, the issue comes about the interpretation of the license itself. First of all, there is a problem with it that you don't have addressed: if the license says that "The content of the information must not be altered", then why does it states that "The meaning of the information must not be distorted"? Should not that be implied in the previous condition in the first place? If you distort the meaning of the information you are of course altering its content. Thus it has no sense to state it in such a way unless it is meant to address two different kinds of "information": that the first condition refers to written information and the second one to images. I conclude this for several reasons:
- 1. The large amount of written information in the website in comparison to the relatively few images present there can be a reason to give written information much more importance.
- 2. The license differentiates between "content of the information" and "meaning of the information" (something which the Spanish Government official website does not do). Content usually gives a given information its meaning, so it is weird to find it treated differently, unless "content" refers to written data and "meaning" to images (which would make sense: written information in itself would have content meant to be protected, whereas it would be weird to talk about images on terms of its "content", but more about their "meaning").
- This difference is important, because whereas "the content" is not allowed to be altered, "meaning" can be altered as long as it is not distorted. So, if images are considered to belong to the first category of information, they can't be considered for inclusion in the Commons; but if they belong to the second category of information, maybe they could be. Art. 14.4 of the Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996, of April 12, bans alteration of images in the public domain only if such alterations mean "prejudice to [the author's] legitimate interests or threaten his reputation". It is allowed if that is not the case.
- While a personal opinion, I hope this helps a bit out. Impru20 (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- My email to the Congress doesnt have any answer. I spoke them about the posibility of change de legal advisor to make it more similar to the Commons policies of content to keep the file in this web and use it in Wikipedia. I explain them all. I guess that this matter doesnt mind them.--CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
- Now, the issue comes about the interpretation of the license itself. First of all, there is a problem with it that you don't have addressed: if the license says that "The content of the information must not be altered", then why does it states that "The meaning of the information must not be distorted"? Should not that be implied in the previous condition in the first place? If you distort the meaning of the information you are of course altering its content. Thus it has no sense to state it in such a way unless it is meant to address two different kinds of "information": that the first condition refers to written information and the second one to images. I conclude this for several reasons:
Deleted: per discussion, obviously not released under cc-by-sa Krd 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Auguste Seysses
[edit]No freedom of panorama in France, Seysses died in 1946, his work is still under copyright.
- File:Auguste Seysses - La fontaine le soir de la vie Toulouse 1907.jpg
- File:Auguste Seysses - Le soir de la vie Toulouse 1907.jpg
- File:Monument capitaine anglade figeac.jpg
Traumrune (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
This is the same image as File:George Formby statue – geograph 3142096.jpg. Nordlicht8 (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- What a silly mistake to make! Thanks for picking up on it. Is there a chance we could keep this one and lose the first one tho? Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the request to the duplicate file: could you please close this request in order for the other deletion to proceed. Thanks - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: In cases of identical files, we keep the earlier one. Do not remove {{Delete}} tags from files -- it slows down the process substantially and is a serious violation of COmmons rules. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Thank you for reminding me why I don't bother with Commons too much any more. It's a place when sheer blind, unthinking bureaucratic process takes precedence over editor thought and reasoning. There were good reasons to delete the other version and keep this one, but unfortunately you did not even bother to ask the person who uploaded, and then made a request for the other to be removed first. I'll post locally to Wikipedia in future and ensure tags are placed not to transfer to Commons, just to ensure that future images don't suffer the same administrative mindlessness. - SchroCat (talk) 15:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- SchroCat, as far as I could see, the two images were absolutely identical. Perhaps I am mistaken in that. Since you have not deigned to share your reason for the choice with us, I did only what I could, thought about it for a little while and decided that it was better to follow policy, particularly since the one I kept had the shorter name, and I made a choice. By all means, if there is a valid reason for your choice, I'd be happy to swap them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: , if they had been identical, with no other reason to choose one over the other, I would have been unlikely to make the request would I? There is (or rather was) a valid reason (thus the request), but it's all too little too late now. Next time, try tempering blind bureaucracy with common sense: the results are much more positive for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- SchroCat, again, it is a matter of a few second's work to restore the one and delete the other, but unless you tell me the reason I should do that, I'm not going to do it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: , if they had been identical, with no other reason to choose one over the other, I would have been unlikely to make the request would I? There is (or rather was) a valid reason (thus the request), but it's all too little too late now. Next time, try tempering blind bureaucracy with common sense: the results are much more positive for all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
- SchroCat, as far as I could see, the two images were absolutely identical. Perhaps I am mistaken in that. Since you have not deigned to share your reason for the choice with us, I did only what I could, thought about it for a little while and decided that it was better to follow policy, particularly since the one I kept had the shorter name, and I made a choice. By all means, if there is a valid reason for your choice, I'd be happy to swap them. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I've already said: it's too little, too late, and I'll be happy to keep any and all future posting to the 'pedia, rather than Commons, thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
not true.I never put it in there 69.76.35.134 21:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't understand the reason give, but this is a copyvio. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Unclear if the PD requirement is fulfilled. The date given is obviously nonsense. Leyo 22:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The date is clearly generated by saving the file and user didn't checked it while uploading.
- Description says it is a postcard from the end of 19th or beginning of 20th century. Kruusamägi (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Latvia is 70 pma so anything after 1885 is too recent to assume the author has been dead for 70 years. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
obsolete by File:Xerographic photocopy process es.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: JPEG Unused and superseded by the SVG. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
obsolete by File:Xerographic photocopy process en.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 22:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Quiero borrar la imagen para volver a subirla porque no apareció en la página de Wikipedia. Felipe.ir.1999 (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Krd 16:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Fake logo. There's no reference that the colors were on that position inside the logo Sfs90 (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: recently uploaded, unused and superseeded Krd 16:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Fake logo and out of COMMONS:SCOPE Sfs90 (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
PNG duplicate of svg Antemister (talk) 14:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: in use, no reason to delete Krd 16:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Bad copy - there was an error while uploading (coat of arms disappeared). New file will be in png. UPD. uploaded: File:Code civil 1816 edition.png. Hausratte (talk) 19:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request Krd 16:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Mac screenshots
[edit]DR emerged from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adobe PS - save jpeg dialog.png
Those Mac Screenshots contain at least one of the following elements which could be considered a copyvio per com:TOO. This highly controversial matter needs a wider discussion than previous DRs which ended up being inconsistently closed as kept/deleted (two examples may not be representative). Though other aspects were relevant in previous DRs as well, we need a guideline which screenshots of non-free operating systems can be kept based on com:TOO and com:DM.
This DR only focuses on very basic elements of modern operating systems and not on the actual content of the files (which indeed need a case-by-case discussion)!
.png)
Relevant elements (due to 3D-effects, gradient, shadow/light-filters):
- Minimize and Close buttons
- Scrollbar
- OK/Cancel button
- Checkbox/Radiobox
Affected files containing at least one of the relevant elements:
- File:20130920125838!Firefox Screenshot.PNG
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo1.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo10.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo11.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo2.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo3.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo4.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo5.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo6.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo7.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo8.png
- File:Abandoned Drafts demo9.png
- File:AdiumX screenshot.png
- File:Adium informazioni su.jpg
- File:Adium klient.jpg
- File:Adium lista contatti.jpg
- File:Adium preferenze aspetto.png
- File:Adium preferenze avanzate.png
- File:Adium preferenze messaggi.png
- File:Adobe PS - save jpeg dialog.png
- File:Amsynth.png
- File:Anaphraseus 2.04.98b.png
- File:Anki.png
- File:Applescript window say hello.png
- File:Applescriptresult.png
- File:Aquamacs screenshot.png
- File:Atualizacaofirefoxpt.png
- File:Audacity-macosx.png
- File:BKchem v0.11.6 Mac OS X 10.4.8.png
- File:Bildschirmfoto 2009-11-12 um 23.29.11.png
- File:Blender 2.65a Mac OS X.png
- File:Burn window.png
- File:Burnmainwindow-pt.png
- File:BusinessCardComposerScreen.png
- File:Camino-404.png
- File:Camino1.0-zrzut-ekranu.jpg
- File:Camino1.6.1pt.png
- File:Camino2.0.png
- File:Camino 1.6.10.png
- File:Camino screenshot.png
- File:Capture-Portail-lille métropole-Camino-chevauchement.tiff
- File:Categories in Danish upload campaign.png
- File:Cog0.06r391.png
- File:Cogosx7.png
- File:Colloquy.png
- File:Commonist screenshot.png
- File:Commons location of language settings shown in Google Crome.png
- File:ConversationAdiumThemePersonnaliser.jpg
- File:Cyberduck 3.4-bookmarks.png
- File:Cyberduckpt3.0.1.png
- File:DaWiki-modified-footer.png
- File:Default Firefox (Mac).jpg
- File:Ez7zscreen.png
- File:Fink-MacOSX-Terminal.png
- File:Finkcommander.png
- File:Firefox20macwiki.png
- File:Firefox 3.0.3 running on Mac Tiger.png
- File:Gimp 2.2.8 Mac.png
- File:Global Replace 0.3.png
- File:Gnumail1.2.0.png
- File:Growl-pt.png
- File:Gtkwave-mac.jpg
- File:HandBrake screenshot.png
- File:Hola Mundo AppleScript.png
- File:Import.png
- File:Impro-Visor.jpg
- File:Iyy2.7.png
- File:JGRASP+hello world.png
- File:JOGL Refrection Demo Screenshot.png
- File:Kompilace.tiff
- File:MAC command line.png
- File:Mac OS X hello world dialog.png
- File:Macosskinwin.PNG
- File:Mainwindow-shot.png
- File:MultiProtocoleAdium.jpeg
- File:Neoofficeptbr.png
- File:Notational velocity screenshot.png
- File:OOo3.0RC4 on Mac.jpg
- File:OpenVanilla08ScreenShot.jpg
- File:OpenVanillaPreference.jpg
- File:PerianPrefPane.png
- File:Safari4window.png
- File:Screen navegador Camino.png
- File:Screenshot-Bean.png
- File:Shiira screenshot.png
- File:Sparkle Test App Check for updates on startup?.png
- File:Sparkle Test App Software Update.png
- File:Spirit-Jailbreak-Tool.png
- File:TeXShop 2.09b.png
- File:TeXShop v214.png
- File:TenFourFox 12 screenshot.png
- File:TenFourFox 9 screenshot.png
- File:TextEdit.png
- File:TextEdit screenshot.png
- File:TheUnarchiver3.5.1 es.png
- File:TopXNotes-NoteOrganizer.jpg
- File:TopXNotes-Screen-3.jpg
- File:Transmission1.50b4.png
- File:TrueCrypt 7.1a Mac OS X Screenshot.png
- File:UI elements (mac).png
- File:Vienna.png
- File:Vimp2 help open.png
- File:Vlcmediaplayer0.8.6iptbr.png
- File:Xee showing the Xee icns.png
.jpg){kind=link}
McZusatz (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Discussion
- IMO COM:DM is applicable to a good number of these. However, I don't think a mass DR can be used to meaningfully resolve any potential copyright issues here, given the vast degree of dissimilarity between these images -FASTILY 10:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- The actual content of most (if not all) of those screenshots is free due to the license of the software. Thus, the elements of the unfree operating system is a common problem to all of them and a mass request is actually the best way to solve this issue. --McZusatz (talk) 11:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Fastily. While there may be individual images,icons, and text that require deletion, I see nothing common to these images that has a copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep In our time, a simply gradient or a shade or shine, IMHO, has no original authorship. Anyway they are many free buttons like this. Must not have a copyright or a level of creative a significant difference⁇ PS: Copyright infringement means "made into a very similar work", see also w:Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc.#Circuit Court case "Since the buttons are essential to operating …, their layout cannot be copyrighted.". → User: Perhelion 11:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Even if one of the elements fails due to com:TOO they can still safely be considered de minimis not only because the main subject of the screenshot clearly is not an element of the UI but also because the element only takes up a small, insignificant part of the image. --McZusatz (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Specifically, File:Mac OS X hello world dialog.png must not be deleted because it is an illustration for a book on wikibooks.org about AppleScript programming. It shows the output of running an example script, a common practice in programming texts. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Comment When/if kept these images need to be tagged for clarity for future users. Perhaps use a relevant template on all the pages or create one specific to the "Files on Mac" situation? Notice that "Files on Mac" is not even a section heading atCommons:Screenshots, but Microsoft files are addressed at Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft products. I hope this DR may lead to changes in the guidelines and/or policy pages to make it easier for future users/admins. I would also request that closing admin go through the images for missing sources, missing licenses, descriptions which do not describe the software and so on, so the images do not get dumped back into the problem categories and risk coming up for DR again. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Weak keep, or move some images to the English Wikipedia. -Mardus (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because nearly all are used in non English projects⁈ (PS: I see the best way to vandalize persistent through entire Wikimedia project is to move a image to Commons… often nobody move/restore them back… for sure. Keep working.) → User: Perhelion 17:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, because the English Wikipedia allows files under a Fair Use provision of the U.S. copyright law, and a similar provision is also in the Australian copyright law. Most other countries don't have that. That's why some of these files can be moved to the English Wikipedia.
- That nearly all are used in non-English projects means that they have to be put into disuse and replaced with similar images, or that said images must be retouched in order to better follow policy. -Mardus (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Because nearly all are used in non English projects⁈ (PS: I see the best way to vandalize persistent through entire Wikimedia project is to move a image to Commons… often nobody move/restore them back… for sure. Keep working.) → User: Perhelion 17:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep most of these items, Delete File:Adobe PS - save jpeg dialog.png. Apparently, McZusatz misinterpreted my nomination for "Adobe PS - save jpeg dialog.png". That dialog box belongs to a non-free computer program, hence they layout is copyright protected (c.f. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 Taskbar.PNG) but most of these items are free and open-source screenshots, hence their layout is free and the matter of OS X control is rendered de minimis. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, the reason for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 Taskbar.PNG states that there were "many entities [failing] PD-simple" and obviously de minimis can not apply due to the icons being the main aspect of the screenshot. --McZusatz (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- True. What do you mean?
- Best regards,
- Codename Lisa (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, the reason for deletion in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Windows 8 Taskbar.PNG states that there were "many entities [failing] PD-simple" and obviously de minimis can not apply due to the icons being the main aspect of the screenshot. --McZusatz (talk) 09:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, I think these elements are under the threshold of originality. --Pierre Rudloff (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Violación de derechos de autor. El logo de TV Azteca es marca registrada. Vichock (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: This is the logo of Azteca América, a television broadcast network in the Spanish language which is located in the United States. Hence US law applies and a minimal threshold of originality is required for this logo to be eligible for copyright. This logo consists of very simple geometric figures and some text. The geometric figures consist of three stretched drops in its centre and two attached shapes that adapt to the centre shapes, one in form of a half circle with rounded corners and one of a triangle shape with two edges and a round corner. To have three stretched drops is not uncommon (see here and here for older logos) and thereby I fail to see anything original in this logo. However, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} was used as license tag which is inappropriate. Instead I have added {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademark}} as indeed this logo is subject to trademark laws. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
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)
