Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/07/22
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Spielzeugfestung,_um_1885.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_stammt_2014-07-13_06-31.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Photo repost from HSH forum. 解放的高加索 (talk) 07:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Speedy delete and block the uploader. Obvious {{Copyvio}} uploaded by persistent copyvio-only uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvios. Yann (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This photo was from HSH forum 解放的高加索 (talk) 07:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy delete and block the uploader. Obvious {{Copyvio}} uploaded by persistent copyvio-only uploader. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted Nick (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Некорректно прописаны авторские права ToEst (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Windows screenshot - copyright software screenshot Nick (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Taken directly from Facebook: link ɱ (talk) 11:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation - https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=270857125861 Nick (talk) 11:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyvio. No proof of authorization. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 11:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- J'ai crée ce fichier à partir d'une affiche dont les créateurs et les droits sont inconnus. - Groupir ! (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Si les droits sont inconnus (que ce soit pour l'affiche ou pour la photo de De Funès que tu as utilisée), alors ça ne t'autorise pas à une utilisation libre ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. If published in 1975, and without any known permission, this image can't be uploaded under a free license. The fact that the uploader doesn't know author and author's rights doesn't mean that there are no author's rights. Copyright is the normal way and free licenses, especially for images created during the seventies, are only exceptions Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Please use the speedy template for this type of case Pleclown (talk) 10:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- I didn't because I was not 100% sure. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Becousw its to mich pornographie! Boom8899 (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: User request to delete own userpage Nick (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
copy of http://images.lpcdn.ca/641x427/201106/06/337777-maxim-martin.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted Nick (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This file is outdated for the purpose I uploaded it for. Fallon White (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested deletion of unused file Nick (talk) 10:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
The ship pictured is not a Holland America Line cruise ship. HAL ships have a blue and white color scheme and none have the observation deck that is pictured. 151.124.40.11 23:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Factual inaccuracy with title or description can be remedied without deletion of entire image Nick (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
wrong name, this is Scaphium lychnophorum not Sterculia AlleinStein (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Please ask to have the file renamed - deletion is not required in this case Nick (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
wrong name, this is Scaphium lychnophorum not Sterculia AlleinStein (talk) 23:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Comment: If the filename is worng, just rename the file instead for nominatig for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Please ask to have the file renamed - deletion is not required in this case Nick (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
smoking Pharos Arts Foundation (talk) 21:02,
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
SVG image at File:Coat of arms of the Philippines.svg. Fry1989 eh? 00:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 09:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Sitush as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: absolutely no indication that this is ca. 1900, the subject lived until 1931 and the source is copyrighted Yann (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is self evident that this is a 40 or 50 year old man, placing it c. 1890 or 1900. Even if taken when he was 60 (1910) that is still 104 years old. The fact the source claims it is copyright is irrelevant. Institutions typically claim every image they own is copyright, however old it is. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't self-evident. My 76 year old mother looks no older than the guy in this photo. Who took the photo? When? Where? 1923 is a significant date in US copyright law, and UK copyright law is tougher. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- He would have been 73 in 1923. Do you really think this a picture of a 73 year old man? I hope I look that good at 73. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @Sitush: Obviously the man here is not 73 years old. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree and the uploader has not proven otherwise. In fact, the uploader has misrepresented what the source said. That alone is poor practice. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've now found this from 1925, which makes it more evident that our image is pre-1923. I still think that the information needs to be changed because there is no support for it but I'm happy for the image itself to be retained. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree and the uploader has not proven otherwise. In fact, the uploader has misrepresented what the source said. That alone is poor practice. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- No, it isn't self-evident. My 76 year old mother looks no older than the guy in this photo. Who took the photo? When? Where? 1923 is a significant date in US copyright law, and UK copyright law is tougher. - Sitush (talk) 22:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn Yann (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
This "artwork" appears to be the work of an unnotable artist. It is not realistically useful for an educational purpose, nor legitimately in use per COM:SCOPE. The file was being used in Simul Romanov but that Wikipedia article was deleted for lack of notability. Green Giant (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. All these files are reproductions of artworks by living Omar Battistella, an Argentine painter. Permission via COM:OTRS needed. Unsure about File:Battistellaomar.jpg, most likely taken his Facebook. All uploads made on 28.03.2012. The related eswiki-entry got deleted 1 day later.
- File:CAPITALISMO SIMPÁTICO.jpg
- File:INPORVENIR.jpg
- File:LA MEDIA CLASE ( AÑOS 76 - 83 ).jpg
- File:LA ERA DE LA MENTIRA ( AÑOS 1989 - 2000 ).jpg
- File:EXCLUÍDO 2.jpg
- File:SIN AGUA.jpg
- File:Battistellaomar.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely work of Flickr user JuntaInforma. Flickrreviewd cc-by-sa-2.0 file (uploaded at Flickr in 02.2012, no exif) but cropped from a photo available at the official site of the portrayed painter http://www.luisgordillo.es/ (-->click on "CONTACTO") = http://www.luisgordillo.es/data/contacto/LuisGordillo.jpg (last modified: 2010, full frame and higher res version). The photo is - as indicated - copyrighted by "© Kike Palacio".
Permission from "Kike Palacio" needed. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Brujo.jpg (same Flickr source & uploader). Gunnex (talk) 06:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
some homepage material, text only Motopark (talk) 06:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely work of Flickr user JuntaInforma. Flickrreviewd cc-by-sa-2.0 file (uploaded at Flickr in 02.2012, almost thumb size, no exif) but cropped from a photo available via http://psoedeayamonte.blogspot.de/2011/07/florencio-aguilera_31.html (2011) = http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Ml2Qbx3npns/TjW3N5bE01I/AAAAAAAACV0/u8V80YwMMc4/s1600/SC_40802718ared.jpg. As indicated ("Fuente: ABC"), the photo was printed by en:ABC (newspaper), a Spanish national daily newspaper, and is copyrighted by ABC/"José A. Pérez".
Permission by ABC/"José A. Pérez" needed. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luis Gordillo.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Brujo.jpg (same Flickr source & uploader). Gunnex (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely work of Flickr user JuntaInforma. Flickrreviewd cc-by-sa-2.0 file (uploaded at Flickr in 02.2012, no exif) but previously published via (example) http://www.diariodecine.es/ssnovedades3.html (last modified: 01.2012) = http://www.diariodecine.es/ssjosefinamolina1.jpg (last modified: 2011, higher res version, identical exif) or http://www.abc.es/20111027/cultura-cine/abci-josefina-molina-goya-honor-201110271808.html (2011, credit: "PIPO FERNÁNDEZ", Copyright © DIARIO ABC, S.L.) = http://www.abc.es/Media/201110/27/josefina-molina-goya-honor.JPG (high res version). The photo is - per above and exif - copyrighted by "Pipo Fernandez". Permission from "Pipo Fernandez" needed. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/File:El Brujo.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Luis Gordillo.jpg + Commons:Deletion requests/File:Florencio Aguilera.jpg (same Flickr source & uploader). Gunnex (talk) 07:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
seems to be a copy violation from http://www.imh-deutschland.de/page/index.php (cropped photo), see there also http://www.imh-deutschland.de/page/index.php?rubrik=00015&id=0072 - all is copyrighted; -jkb- (talk) 08:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Looks suspiciously like a crop from this image. No sign of a free license at the source website. El Grafo (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scan of a newspaper/magazine marked as "own work". If that's ture, we need a written permission via COM:OTRS. El Grafo (talk) 11:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Most probably not own work: logos, small pictures without EXIF data, etc.
- File:ALG-NGA 1990-03-16.svg
- File:Mohamed Benguesmia.jpg
- File:Maillot Algerie 2014.png
- File:Maillot Algerie 2010.jpg
- File:Maillot Algerie 2012.png
- File:Maillot Algerie 1982.png
- File:Air Algérie Logo.svg
- File:JSM Bejaia (Logo).png
- File:Supercoupe d'Algérie.png
- File:ASVBlida-USMBlida (Volley-Ball).svg
- File:Logo Par Année (USM Blida).svg
- File:Ancien logo USM Blida.svg
- File:Logo Nedjma D2.svg
- File:USM Blida logo.svg
- File:Stade Frère Brakni.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Considering the user's history and the EXIF data, these images are unlikely to be own work. NB user is currently blocked.
- File:Yacine.Brahimi.jpg
- File:Championnat d'Algérie de football D2 1991-1992.jpg
- File:CS Constantine vs USM Blida, Mai 6th 1994.jpg
- File:Mustapha Tchaker Stadium.jpg
- File:Stade Mustapha-Tchaker.png
Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 07:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ymblanter (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
out of scope Nolispanmo 13:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Selfie. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused selfie. out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused selfie. Out of scope. Mippzon (talk) 13:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope ireas (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Fake/nonsense: there is no ‘Koslira atoll’ ireas (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal image ireas (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kirstenfrankly (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images from Utah State Senate site (e.g., File:Senate Todd Weiler.jpg is here, File:Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton.jpg is here, etc.) The site is non-commercial ("A person or entity may not use any part of the information on a legislative web site for commercial purposes or publish the information for commercial gain without proper attribution of source" - [1]). OTRS permission would be required to host these images. See also User talk:Ssilverstein for similar uploads.
- File:Wayne Niederhauser.jpg
- File:Senate Todd Weiler.jpg
- File:Utah State Senator Margaret Dayton.jpg
- File:Utah State Senator Scott Jenkins.jpg
- File:Utah State Senator Allan Christensen.jpg
- File:Senator Curt Bramble.jpg
- File:Utah Senator Stuart Adams.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 15:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kirstenfrankly (talk · contribs)
[edit]Source and author credited as "Utah State Senate"; no evidence of permission. Utah State Senate site has terms that are incompatible with the Commons ("anyone may view, copy, or distribute information found on a legislative web site for personal use without owing an obligation to the Legislature. A person or entity may not use any part of the information on a legislative web site for commercial purposes [...]")
Эlcobbola talk 16:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Сергей Кутый (talk · contribs)
[edit]Most probably not own works: small size, no EXIF data.
- File:Artpop Ball Tour.jpg
- File:ARTPOP BALL.jpg
- File:ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:ArtRAVE The Artpop Ball.jpg
- File:GAGA Alejandro.jpg
- File:Lady GAGA.jpg
- File:Lady Gaga - Venus.jpg
- File:Donatella Gaga.jpg
- File:Gypsy Gaga.jpg
- File:Bad Romance.jpg
- File:Lady GaGaGa.jpg
- File:Gaga.jpg
- File:ARTPOP.jpg
- File:Lady Gaga artRAVE.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, File:Gaga.jpg appeared in Daily Mirror before the uploader uploaded it here. Some (most) files appear in a forum http://atrl.net/forums/showthread.php?p=21412686#21412686 transcluded from gagaimages.org example in much larger size. --Martin H. (talk) 05:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Сергей Кутый (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
- File:ARTRAVE GAGA.jpg
- File:BR ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:Gaga ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:GAGA ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:GaGa ARTPOP Ball.jpg
- File:G.U.Y..jpg
- File:Lady Gaga ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:ArtRAVE ARTPOP Ball.jpg
- File:Гага ArtRAVE.jpg
- File:ArtRAVE, Lady Gaga.jpg
- File:Выступление на artRAVE.jpg
- File:ArtRAVE.jpg
- File:Леди Гага и Тони Беннетт на выступлении.jpg
- File:Гага и Беннетт выступают на концерте "Tony Bennett and Lady Gaga".jpg
- File:Леди Гага и Тони Беннетт выступают в Frank Sinatra School of the Arts.jpg
- File:Леди Гага выступает на премии "American Music Awards 2013".jpg
- File:ARTRAVE.jpg
- File:Аншлаг с расписанием.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
- File:CK95UB Chelyabinsk.jpg
- File:Нефаз Челябинск.jpg
- File:ЛиАЗ 5256.53.jpg (Nikon D3100)
- File:ЛиАЗ 5256.56.jpg (Author is Yevgeni Deryabin.)
- File:ЛиАЗ 5292.71.jpg (Canon EOS 1100D)
- File:ЛиАЗ 5256.53 в-п окрас.jpg
- File:Cheek To Cheek.jpg (Is it album cover? Then it is copyrighted.)
- Delete I add all his other contributions also for deletion due to same reason. Sergei Kutyi continued uploading copyright violations and I blocked him for a week. Two photos have EXIF data, but camera is different. Taivo (talk) 16:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 23:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded in batch of copyvios (see user talk/deleted contribs), low res, no camera EXIF. Quack. Эlcobbola talk 15:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
_Spielzeugfestung,_um_1885.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Spielzeugfestung,_um_1885.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per source, this is a scan from a 1987 book. The toy may be PD by age, but the photograph (c. 1987) certainly isn't. This is a 3D object, so Bridgeman does not apply. Эlcobbola talk 15:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
_Spielzeugfestung,_um_1885.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
_Spielzeugfestung,_um_1885.jpg){kind=link}
COM:SCOPE - unused image of non-notable person used to vandalise en.wiki article. Эlcobbola talk 15:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Likely copyvio - Uploaded among copyvios, all with different camera/lens metadata (this DMC-FZ50, File:Olivier de Château Virant.jpg is NIKON D70; File:Rocher de Château Virant.JPG is AF-S DX VR Zoom-Nikkor).
Эlcobbola talk 15:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of packaging + unused and uncategorised therefore likely out of scope too
Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 08:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Uploaded among other Kate Cordsen copyvios - See uploader talk/deleted contribs. Work by living author - http://www.katecordsenphoto.com/ Эlcobbola talk 16:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Considering the archives available of http://www.diegolevis.com.ar/ before and after the upload in 07.2009 this site was always (and actually still is) licensed with CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 AR and not with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}, as indicated by uploader. CC BY-NC-ND 2.5 AR is not compatible with COM:L. Permission needed. Gunnex (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
com:DW. Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ranjithpraj (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:NOTHOST - batch upload of unused images of non-notable person. May also be copyvios - e.g. File:Ranjith P Raj 10.jpg is here, etc.
- File:Ranjith P Raj 10.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 09.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 08.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 07.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 06.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 04.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 05.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 01.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 03.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 02.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Support deletion requests, imho 'self-promotion', Roland zh (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ranjithpraj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Ranjith P Raj 10.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 09.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 08.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 07.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 06.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 04.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 05.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 01.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 03.jpg
- File:Ranjith P Raj 02.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
COM:SCOPE - low quality, unused image of non-notable person Эlcobbola talk 16:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:01, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Image of unknown educational purpose in use on user page who has not been active in years. Out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused, uncategorized image of unknown location, out of COM:SCOPE images must be realistically useful for educational purposes. I looked on the Internet there are several hundred "Gillespie Halls" of various sorts all over the world. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is described as "testing the SVG support," in this case apparently wanting for the image is blank. Outside of COM:SCOPE for not needing a transparent texture unused and uncategorized! Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
"cover of the film" in description line... Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Three pages of what looks like math homework, uncategorized, unused, and outside of COM:SCOPE.
- File:استنتاج القانون العام بطريقة التفاضل والتكامل.jpg
- File:خطوات استنتاج القانون.jpg
- File:خطوات الاستنتاج.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ahmed gamal dw (talk · contribs)
[edit]Four unused, uncategorized and undescribed images: the first is of a building under construction, the next two are photographs of recent newsletters/magazines, the last is of an unnamed man in what looks like a library. Out of COM:SCOPE must be realistically useful for educational purposes. Without descriptions, or categories these are not educational.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Culturatributaria.gt (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious "own works"
- File:Acciones de Divulgación y Promoción de Cultura Tributaria.jpg
- File:Simón Abel Tax.jpg
- File:Festival de Cultura Tributaria.jpg
- File:Materiales Educativos de Cultura Tributaria.jpg
91.64.223.198 17:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
Amitie 10g (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Last remaining file of 5 uploads on 25.01.2014 by ARodriguezT (talk · contributions · Statistics) regarding Spanish football team es:Club Deportivo Guijuelo (--> 4x copyvios) = unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP. Gunnex (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Forget it: Tagged with copyvio via http://comunidad.lagacetadesalamanca.es/galeria-multimedia/General/fotos-historia-reciente-Guijuelo/45975/1.html (credit: "Fotos: MORGAN", La Gaceta de Salamanca On-line Modif. © Grupo Promotor Salmantino, S.A.) = http://comunidad.lagacetadesalamanca.es/servicios/galeriasMultimedia/fotoAmpliada.jsp?pIdGaleria=45975&pIdComponente=1676828 = http://comunidad.lagacetadesalamanca.es/servicios/galeriasMultimedia/media/45975/imagenesAmp/1345568163416_guijuelo05.jpg (last modified: 2012). Gunnex (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of image in this gallery on official page of Musician [2]. No evidence of permission. IronGargoyle (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Derivative of copyrighted photos available at official website [3] -- Meisam (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
It was uploaded by mistake and is of no use. 117.224.100.37 16:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
It was uploaded by mistake and is of no use. 117.224.1.249 07:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Hier sieht man die Explosion in Gaza die von den Zionisten (Israel) stammt 2014-07-13 06-31.jpg
[edit]_stammt_2014-07-13_06-31.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_stammt_2014-07-13_06-31.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted image from 2009 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/jan/31/israel-war-crimes-un-report Triggerhippie4 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This image is the same as File:Katrina–Victor–Cindy 1998 track.png, with the exception of the points that connect the storm path of Katrina (the right-most storm) with that of Victor-Cindy (left), which is original research. The rest of the data is identical to that of the linked image above, and comes from the official datasets for the storm. — Iune(talk) 02:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I made it just for my own personal use. I do not intend to place it on any articles. So it's O.R that isn't made public. I'd like to reqest to keep the exisistance of this file.--Earth100 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Personal image Natuur12 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Football Club logo - copyright infringement SAİT71 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused PNG, superseded by superior SVG. 
Illegitimate Barrister 03:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Press photo stolen from somewhere from the web, for exemple http://historiadelfutbolenimagenes.blogfree.net/?t=969465&st=30. The uploders name suggests he is born 1981. Cesar played for juventus 1990 to 1994, unlikely this is the work of a 13 years old boy (from press perspective, non-digital camera age). Of course this raises the question why a thirty years old (at time of upload 2011) man is stealing, but thats a different problem. 77.3.92.54 05:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Palosirkka as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: proprietary software Yann (talk) 05:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted: again. Derivative of Windows UI. Yann (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
copyright/license is not clear. ChongDae (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep – no valid reason for deletion is specified in above request; there is no licensing issue here. Sam Sailor (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The file discription tells me "Portrait crop from English language wanted poster for Korean Yoo Byung-eun, June 2014." so how is this your own work again? Natuur12 (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
The depicted person was born 1944 - 69 years ago. So it seems unlikely that the photographer died >70 years ago as stated by the uploader. Martin H. (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Japan: 1995 monument. see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Ushiku Daibutsu Vigyani (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Not a U.S. Navy work。 解放的高加索 (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted image from 2009 http://www.archive.worldpressphoto.org/search/layout/result/indeling/detailwpp/form/wpp/q/ishoofdafbeelding/true/trefwoord/photographer_formal/Abed%2C%20Mohammed?id=wpp%3Acol1%3Adat10075 Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This is a photo of a photograph placed somewhere on the wall (no source and original author). License is also not correct (PD-BH-exempt). Smooth_O (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, but a photo is an artistic creation. It is a photo of a photo, cropped and rotated. Also, the law says that restrictions do not apply on folk literary and artistic creations. --Herr Ziffer (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Exemption in law is related to folk artistic creation, but this photo is obviously not that. This photo is copyrighed (unless stated otherwise) by original author. --Smooth_O (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Logo from OS X 10.9 → not the uploader's own work → not CC-BY-SA. Is this simple enough for something like {{PD-simple}}? El Grafo (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Logo of a publisher → not the uploader's own work → not CC-BY-SA. Is this simple enough for something like {{PD-textlogo}}? El Grafo (talk) 10:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: pd-textlogo Natuur12 (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago is missing. Also no date and no useful source. El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot from [4]. Copyright notice there is:
© ООО «Дилетант», 2011-2014» При полном или частичном использовании материалов ссылка на «Дилетант» обязательна. Для сетевых изданий обязательна гиперссылка на сайт «Дилетант» — www.diletant.ru
Google translates this to:
© "dabbler", 2011-2014 " At full or partial use of materials the reference to "Amateur" is obligatory. For online publications hyperlink is obligatory on the site "Dilettante» - www.diletant.ru
As far as I can tell, there is no explicit permission for derivative works or commercial use. El Grafo (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:49, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
duplicate of File:Seal of the Philippines.svg Maxxl² - talk 11:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of modern 3D sculpture that is copyrighted by FIFA. The trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga, who is still alive.
See also similar cases that were deleted: here (1), here (2) and here (3).
Fma12 (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Objective of the image is to depict Philipp Lahm with team colleagues celebrating their victory at the football world championship, not to depict Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art. --RJFF (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Actually the image is taken to depict Philipp Lahm holding Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art and to release that with a commons compatible licence we need FIFA's consent as the rights holder of the trophy. LGA talkedits 00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep ---dam- (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete this work is clearly taken to depict trophy, the trophy is not COM:DM and as a result we cant keep it unless FIFA consent. LGA talkedits 00:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: This one is not DM imho. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
If you conclude that its not allowed, you should ~sweep the trophy (german: verpixeln). --Itu (talk) 08:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of modern 3D sculpture that is copyrighted by FIFA. The trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga, who is still alive.
See also similar cases that were deleted: here (1), here (2) and here (3).
Fma12 (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep per my comments here..--Stemoc (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The goal of the photo is not to show Philipp Lahm lifting a work by Silvio Gazzaniga, but to show celebration on the occasion of obtaining the trophy designed by no matter whom. This photo would have a value had the trophy been designed by any other artist or even had the trophy been blurred. This is exactly similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg and completely different from Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK MK Man Ming Sporting Goods WorldCup.jpg, where the cup was the only object — NickK (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: This one is DM imho. Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haya nsair (talk · contribs)
[edit]Stock photos, cf. shutterstock.com
ireas (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Bizarre reupload of File:Deccan Queen Express.jpg with false attribution Эlcobbola talk 15:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: The file was in use at es:Wikipedia before I replaced the link with the bigger resolution of them (that you should done before nominating this file for deletion). And please don't assume than the uploader is assuming bad faith for this upload. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Where, precisely, is an assumption of bad faith? The original file has a CC-by-Sa license, which requires attribution. This version does not credit the original author, but instead the uploader (i.e. False attribution). I never said it was intentionally false. Maybe assume the assumption of good faith? Or actually understand AGF before lecturing? Эlcobbola talk 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Leider falsches Bild hochgeladen Jost (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hard to tell what is going on here. The description asserts "first prototype of the brand" which is surely not true. But the picture does seem to be a representation of a character that is presumably copyrighted. I'm not sure what "Permission: Nope" means, but it doesn't sound promising. Pete F (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Copy of http://www.lhebdojournal.com/media/photos/unis/2009/02/25/4b5cd861de1dbGOUIN_Benoit.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Взяті в полон терористи, які спробували чинити опір українським спецназівцям. (Нацгварія).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source not specified not specified author, like the cops from the Internet - Максим Підліснюк (talk) 16:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
File:Загін героїв Сил спеціальних операцій повернули Державний прапор України у Дзержинськ.jpg
[edit]
Source not specified not specified author, like the cops from the Internet - Максим Підліснюк (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Source given as "journalist" (in French), no evidence of permission. Ariadacapo (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Origins unknown, but "Own work" seems very dubious Kleuske (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.64.223.198 18:24, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.64.223.198 18:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description, categories... 91.64.223.198 18:40, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
no permission 91.64.223.198 18:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Useless without a description and a full name 91.64.223.198 18:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal file 91.64.223.198 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
unused personal files
91.64.223.198 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Taimurhaider37 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Well Life is like empty bottle without loved ones.jpg
- File:Small moments can bring smile.jpg
- File:Football craze.jpg
Amitie 10g (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This image was too large for the intended purpose. Tzushca (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of file on Musician's official Facebook page [5]. No evidence of permission. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio. Derivative of copyrighted photos available at official website [6] -- Meisam (talk) 09:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
hi
File:0226. Afshin Jafari.jpg is a public picture from afshin
none copy right
what delete ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saeed.hakimii (talk • contribs)
- Just because a picture is offered to the public does not mean that it is free of copyright. Please see Commons:Licensing. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Can you tell me how to release?
too, iranian none of copy right ..
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Non-authorized cap from a film ("em cena do filme" means that) Yanguas (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
This should also be deleted as a derivative of the other David Horvitz photos of questionable quality, educational purpose, and copyright status as we have no OTRS record of the claimed released rights. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete unclear (c)status --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Russavia undeleted this to make a point when I went on the IRC channel asking for help in dealing with a recently discovered sockpuppet. It should be redeleted as should File:Laketahoewhalebeach.jpg.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This photo was previously deleted by community consensus, so now it is a candidate for speedy deletion. Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If Russavia disagrees he can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. This is not the way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This should also be deleted as it is a derivative of the David Horvitz photo of which we have unclear copyright status and its general poor quality for a landscape photo. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
- Delete unclear (c)status (see original) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of modern 3D sculpture that is copyrighted by FIFA. The trophy was designed (1971) by Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga, who is still alive.
See also similar cases that were deleted: here (1), here (2) and here (3).
Fma12 (talk) 13:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - I understand why we delete the picture of the trophy taken elsewhere but to delete the image which was taken at its "sole purpose", the FIFA World Cup is beyond idiotic..yes pictures of the "CUP ITSELF" is copyrighted but it surely does NOT apply when taken at THIS event..There is a flaw in commons DW and it surely does not apply to this--Stemoc (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The trophy is clearly de minimis here. Yann (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The trophy is clearly not de minimis. The fact that the trophy takes up a relatively small part of the photo is irrelevant. The purpose of the photo is to show the trophy, which is further emphasized by the name of the file and its use in illustrating en:FIFA World Cup Trophy. Thus, its inclusion is not incidental. In fact, it fails Commons:De minimis#Guidelines on every single point. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @LX: Sorry, but your argument does not make sense. You mean that the designer of the cup could sue the photographer and reusers of this picture because it includes the cup? I bet you anything that you are wrong... Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying that COM:DM applies even though it fails COM:DM#Guidelines on every point, and it's my argument that doesn't make sense? Anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not they can win is hard to know before a verdict, but that kind of gambling is not our cup of tea. The Edvard Eriksen estate harassing people who publish photos of the Little Mermaid statues with some success is probably the best known example of copyright holders of sculptures going after photographers, so it's certainly not unheard of. A lot of people would get away with it based on fair use arguments, but that's not what we're about either. The fact is, this is not a free photo because its purpose is to depict a non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- I feel your reasoning is as flawed as the Commons:DW, the sole purpose of that cup is the FIFA World Cup and pictures of players hoisting the cup after the main FINAL is where this DW rule does not/should not apply..if the pic was taken days before the cup, i would not have uploaded it myself beaus I'm aware of our DW rule. The picture of the cup on its own may fall under DW but as it stands, its not....the reason given by fma12 is actually very stupid, those pics which were deleted were taken 'outside' of the FIFA World Cup, our DW rules most definitely should NOT apply to the current situation..--Stemoc (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Stemoc, my reasons are not "very stupid" as you stated above. My reason is that there are rules in Commons and we have to follow them. Beyond your intentions when uploading this file (and the others that I nominated), I included links to previous DR which were derivative works (all of the files were supressed although in some cases the cup was displayed at a small size). I made the nominations by the certainty that the photos are copyvios. The only "very stupid" thing here is your attemp of defense: who said you that the deleted photos were taken "outside" the competition? I personally nominated some of those files and several photos had been taken inside of the World Cup. - Fma12 (talk) 02:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- What you're talking about there is fair use. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- firstly Fma12, you only nominated them after Argentina lost the FIFAWC final to Germany, might i also mention that you are an Argentinian? I hope you are being rational cause it doesn't seem like you are..Yes, in previous case the trophy was subject to commercialization and thus would easily falls under the Commons:DW rule but not in this case, i saw all the images that were deleted and they deserve to be deleted but not this ones, none for the FIFAWC Final, I'm sorry but you are just being silly and irrational here, the trophy on its own is subject to our DW rule but not in situations where the sole reason for the trophy was on display which in this case is the lifting of the cup after the final. Had the pic been taken a day after the FIFAWC, I Would have nominated it for deletion myself..I don't see Silvio Gazzaniga suing thousands if not millions of newspapers and magazines around the world for showing the picture of the German team lifting the cup..as i said earlier, our OWN policy in regards to this issue is "FLAWED" and LX, the image can't be used as 'fair-use' just because one small section of the image 'possibly' is non-free, that is again in my sense, stupid..either we change our policy on this or make an RfC to change our policy which does not take THIS into account..--Stemoc (talk) 11:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Stemac, the argument that I nominated the file because of the defeat of Argentina at the hands of Germany is, at least, ridiculous. I have been nominating many pictures of copyrighted trophies (not only the FIFA WC), even before Argentina lost the final to Germany. In cases like that, my passion for football is always left behind. - Fma12 (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Deletion discussions are decided based on copyright law and existing Commons policies (which includes Commons:De minimis). Policy changes should be discussed elsewhere. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- @LX: Do you realise that you are actually alone against everyone else here? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- From Commons:Deletion requests: "Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." In this case, "everyone" consists of you, the uploader and three redlinked users with less than 300 edits of combined Commons experience (one of which restated a previously refuted argument and one of which offered no arguments). I'm sorry, but a 5–2 headcount doesn't change the fact that COM:DM#Guidelines says what it says, and you're not going to bully me into pretending it doesn't (but thank you for removing the bit about everyone thinking I'm out of my senses). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you forgot NickK which is an experienced user, and who made good arguments, and previous DR about the same issue. De minimis is always a bit subjective, and not back and white, that's why opinions of others count. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did overlook Nick. Sorry about that. A bit subjective, yes. That's why COM:DM lists multiple criteria, if you follow those rather than emotion, this isn't even close. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if we follow criteria, we get a one really close criterion: Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.. Here the copyrighted work is a trophy, the larger work is "Philipp Lahm (or German team) lift the FIFA World Cup trophy". It is completely impossible to picture the whole German team celebrating without picturing the trophy, and the focus is clearly not on the trophy (it is too small) — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that is not the case, there were plenty of opportunities to capture the team celebrating prior to the award of the trophy.LGA talkedits 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Probably you have not watched the final. It is impossible to picture the team (all 23 players) celebrating prior to the award of the trophy, as Philipp Lahm as the captain is the last to arrive, and he does not join the team before receiving the trophy. Prior to that the team is lined up on the stairs, where it is impossible to picture them. Thus this photo depicts the very first moment the whole German team is celebrating, with all 23 players pictured including Philipp Lahm. If you know any other images (incl. non-free) depicting all players prior to award of the cup, please provide links to them — NickK (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry that is not the case, there were plenty of opportunities to capture the team celebrating prior to the award of the trophy.LGA talkedits 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Well, if we follow criteria, we get a one really close criterion: Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable.. Here the copyrighted work is a trophy, the larger work is "Philipp Lahm (or German team) lift the FIFA World Cup trophy". It is completely impossible to picture the whole German team celebrating without picturing the trophy, and the focus is clearly not on the trophy (it is too small) — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- I did overlook Nick. Sorry about that. A bit subjective, yes. That's why COM:DM lists multiple criteria, if you follow those rather than emotion, this isn't even close. —LX (talk, contribs) 06:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think you forgot NickK which is an experienced user, and who made good arguments, and previous DR about the same issue. De minimis is always a bit subjective, and not back and white, that's why opinions of others count. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- From Commons:Deletion requests: "Any expressed consensus will be taken into account so far as possible, but consensus can never trump copyright law nor can it override Commons Policy." In this case, "everyone" consists of you, the uploader and three redlinked users with less than 300 edits of combined Commons experience (one of which restated a previously refuted argument and one of which offered no arguments). I'm sorry, but a 5–2 headcount doesn't change the fact that COM:DM#Guidelines says what it says, and you're not going to bully me into pretending it doesn't (but thank you for removing the bit about everyone thinking I'm out of my senses). —LX (talk, contribs) 06:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- @LX: Do you realise that you are actually alone against everyone else here? Regards, Yann (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I feel your reasoning is as flawed as the Commons:DW, the sole purpose of that cup is the FIFA World Cup and pictures of players hoisting the cup after the main FINAL is where this DW rule does not/should not apply..if the pic was taken days before the cup, i would not have uploaded it myself beaus I'm aware of our DW rule. The picture of the cup on its own may fall under DW but as it stands, its not....the reason given by fma12 is actually very stupid, those pics which were deleted were taken 'outside' of the FIFA World Cup, our DW rules most definitely should NOT apply to the current situation..--Stemoc (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're saying that COM:DM applies even though it fails COM:DM#Guidelines on every point, and it's my argument that doesn't make sense? Anyone can sue anyone. Whether or not they can win is hard to know before a verdict, but that kind of gambling is not our cup of tea. The Edvard Eriksen estate harassing people who publish photos of the Little Mermaid statues with some success is probably the best known example of copyright holders of sculptures going after photographers, so it's certainly not unheard of. A lot of people would get away with it based on fair use arguments, but that's not what we're about either. The fact is, this is not a free photo because its purpose is to depict a non-free work. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- @LX: Sorry, but your argument does not make sense. You mean that the designer of the cup could sue the photographer and reusers of this picture because it includes the cup? I bet you anything that you are wrong... Yann (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Clearly de minimis. --DerHandelsreisende (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- As I've already stated, Commons' policy on de minimis is at Commons:De minimis, and this fails Commons:De minimis#Guidelines on every point. Simply repeating that this is de minimis without bringing any new arguments to the table does not make it so. Please remember that deletion discussions are not a vote, and as explained at Commons:Deletion requests, consensus can never override Commons Policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. You cant change my opinion. --DerHandelsreisende (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. The goal of the photo is not to show Philipp Lahm lifting a work by Silvio Gazzaniga, but to show celebration on the occasion of obtaining the trophy designed by no matter whom. This photo would have a value had the trophy been designed by any other artist or even had the trophy been blurred. This is exactly similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg and completely different from Commons:Deletion requests/File:HK MK Man Ming Sporting Goods WorldCup.jpg, where the cup was the only object — NickK (talk) 13:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Those who decided to use the photo as an illustration for en:FIFA World Cup Trophy clearly disagree. A photo with the trophy blurred would be fine, but I suspect it would not get much use... I agree that this is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg, but I disagree with the outcome of that deletion discussion, which completely ignores COM:DM#Guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- If anything that DR is possibly the best reason to keep pics like this since the focus on the trophy on that DR is slightly much bigger and yet it fulfills our de-minimis criteria perfectly, as i said earlier, the article is about the "2014 FIFA World Cup", its pointless to upload all images of the world's 2nd biggest event and not be able to allow an image of someone hoisting the trophy associated with it which isn't really the focus of the picture, the team celebration is..again, if it was just the picture of the trophy, i would agree with the DR but it looks like good sense had prevailed in previous DR relating to this and I hope it continues..LX, I feel you have more problem with the "cropped" version of this image than this image itself. I did not make the cropping , I chose not to, someone else did on the enwiki as they wanted to use it on the Main Page, I may agree with the deletion of that cropping as its is the centre of focus but not this full version--Stemoc (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- I do not think that the fact that image of X can be used for illustrating a copyrighted object Y can be the reason for deletion. Try looking at the classical case of en:Louvre Pyramid: images of Louvre featuring the Pyramid were systematically considered as legal (as DM), although cropping the Pyramid only would be considered illegal (as it would be an image of a copyrighted work). Similarly to the article en:FIFA World Cup Trophy, this is not really a great illustration, but at least it seems to be a legal one — NickK (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- You say it yourself the aim of the photograph is to depict the award of the work of Silvio Gazzaniga so that works presence can not be considered COM:DM in the resulting image. LGA talkedits 05:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- according to that article u keep linking "FIFA's regulations now state that the trophy, unlike its predecessor, cannot be won outright: the winners of the tournament receive a Bronze replica which is gold plated rather than solid gold" <in that case, that trophy in the picture is "not" the work of "Silvio Gazzaniga" but a "knock-off" so now i seriously doubt that DW actually applies to clones of the trophy which was not directly created by Silvio but by someone else..--Stemoc (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Those who decided to use the photo as an illustration for en:FIFA World Cup Trophy clearly disagree. A photo with the trophy blurred would be fine, but I suspect it would not get much use... I agree that this is similar to Commons:Deletion requests/File:FIFA World Cup 2010 Spain with cup.jpg, but I disagree with the outcome of that deletion discussion, which completely ignores COM:DM#Guidelines. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The point of the photo is to depict the German national team celebrating their victory at the football world championship, not to depict Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art. --RJFF (talk) 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is demonstrably false, as it is used to illustrate en:FIFA World Cup Trophy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- uhm, it was added to that article because the only image on that page of the trophy was deleted because of the DW and there needs to be some sort of 'image' to represent the trophy on the wiki, even if its barely in the picture and that picture was used as there was no alternatives as they were all deleted.. your reasoning here is moot..--Stemoc (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is used to represent the trophy, which means that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. De minimis is not a magic loophole for illustrating articles on copyrighted works. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is wrong to assert that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. The point of the photo is clearly to depict Philipp Lahm with the German team. If you replace the trophy with some other award for the victory, the photo would make sense, if you replace Philipp Lahm and the German team with 23 random guys, the photo would be useless. Which means the point of the photo is to depict Philipp Lahm and the German team. Just the same way as in File:Louvre at night centered.jpg the point is not to depict Louvre Pyramid, although it is clearly visible — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, it is being used to illustrate the trophy in the article on the trophy. If anything is incidental here, I'd say it's Lahm... —LX (talk, contribs) 09:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't prove anything, as shown by the Louvre Pyramid example. The fact that this image is included in the article about the trophy does not change in anyway the fact that it is de minimis. As for LGA's comment above, it is just ridiculous. Not really worth commenting. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "Louvre Pyramid example" is a very poor one, primary because there exists a explicit french case law allowing for "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" when related to architectural works and secondly US copyright law allows for photographs of buildings. There is no way, to quote the policy, the trophy as depicted could be "such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required". I have no doubt that if you placed this image on a t-shirt and sold them in either New York or Berlin FIFA would have no hesitation in taking to the courts to protect there IP therefore this image does not meet the Definition of Free the WMF Licensing policy requires of us. LGA talkedits 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- This French court case is not special to French law. It exists in all law. That's exactly what de minimis is about. And regarding your T-shirt, I believe you don't know what you are talking about. It is completely ridiculous, same as your argument above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The "Louvre Pyramid example" is a very poor one, primary because there exists a explicit french case law allowing for "accessory compared to the main represented or handled subject" when related to architectural works and secondly US copyright law allows for photographs of buildings. There is no way, to quote the policy, the trophy as depicted could be "such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required". I have no doubt that if you placed this image on a t-shirt and sold them in either New York or Berlin FIFA would have no hesitation in taking to the courts to protect there IP therefore this image does not meet the Definition of Free the WMF Licensing policy requires of us. LGA talkedits 09:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- This doesn't prove anything, as shown by the Louvre Pyramid example. The fact that this image is included in the article about the trophy does not change in anyway the fact that it is de minimis. As for LGA's comment above, it is just ridiculous. Not really worth commenting. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Again, it is being used to illustrate the trophy in the article on the trophy. If anything is incidental here, I'd say it's Lahm... —LX (talk, contribs) 09:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is wrong to assert that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. The point of the photo is clearly to depict Philipp Lahm with the German team. If you replace the trophy with some other award for the victory, the photo would make sense, if you replace Philipp Lahm and the German team with 23 random guys, the photo would be useless. Which means the point of the photo is to depict Philipp Lahm and the German team. Just the same way as in File:Louvre at night centered.jpg the point is not to depict Louvre Pyramid, although it is clearly visible — NickK (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is used to represent the trophy, which means that the point of the photo is to depict the trophy. De minimis is not a magic loophole for illustrating articles on copyrighted works. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- uhm, it was added to that article because the only image on that page of the trophy was deleted because of the DW and there needs to be some sort of 'image' to represent the trophy on the wiki, even if its barely in the picture and that picture was used as there was no alternatives as they were all deleted.. your reasoning here is moot..--Stemoc (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- This is demonstrably false, as it is used to illustrate en:FIFA World Cup Trophy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep ---dam- (talk) 05:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- This isn't a vote. If you have any actual arguments to bring to the table, please do so. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The image is taken to depict the team holding Mr Gazzaniga's piece of art, it is not COM:DM and unless FIFA consent to licencing the image with a commons compatible licence we can't keep it. FIFA guard their IP very tightly (see Nico Rosberg: World Cup helmet changed after Fifa objection). LGA talkedits 00:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but Nico wasn't actually using the REAL trophy on his helmet, it was a "derivative work" ..not the real thing..there are laws on derivate works..what FIFA copyrights is people using the trophy's image to 'commercialize' their own product, yes that applies to the formula one which is one big billboard of commercials/product placements, it doesn't really apply to the event in question..I think most of you are reading this 'out of context' sponsors of FIFAWC over the decades have been allowed to promote/use the images but we are a non-profit/non-commercial organisation and we are not selling some product so IP Laws don't apply..--Stemoc (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly the WMF which runs commons is a commercial organisation, secondly the WMF Licensing policy requires commons only to host works that have a Free Content License. This image contains at its very heart a work that is protected by FIFA and as such this image does not meet the WMF requirement of free works, no amount of wishing can change that. The image was framed on purpose, to include in it, and to capture, the protected work, therefore it's inclusion can not be considered COM:DM. With regard to the sponsors' use of the trophy, one can reasonably assume that they pay large sums of money to be associated with the event and in return FIFA will allow them to use the image of the trophy under licence, that licence would not be one that comes close to commons compatible. LGA talkedits 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- The FIFA statement ends by If anyone could use the Official Marks for free and create an association with the 2014 FIFA World Cup™, there would be no reason to become a Commercial Affiliate. Firstly, these rules are already violated by the very fact of existence of Category:FIFA World Cup 2014, as both FIFA and World Cup are trademarked by FIFA exactly the same way as the cup is. Secondly, these situations (Nico Rosberg's helmet and this photo) can in no way be compared, as Nico Rosberg used the depiction of the cup in the design of his own helmet (something that is reserved to the abovementioned Commercial Affiliates), while this image depicts 23 players, coaches and a number of other people with the cup. There is no way to reserve this usage to Commercial Affiliates, as this would mean that hardly any photo from the event can be published (for example, even File:Shkodran Mustafi20140714 0012 (cropped).jpg is, according to your theory, illegal as the word FIFA is subject to the same restrictions as the cup). The point of COM:DM is exactly about such cases: there is a copyrighted work pictured, but it is in such context that it can't violate any restrictions — NickK (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- You should re-read the first line of COM:DM, where it outlines what the point of DM is : "de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles") De minimis use of a copyrighted work is such a trivial use that the consent of the copyright owner is not required." the appearance of the copyright work in this image is not trivial, it was captured on purpose with the intent of showing it, therefore it can not be regarded as de minimis. LGA talkedits 06:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The FIFA statement ends by If anyone could use the Official Marks for free and create an association with the 2014 FIFA World Cup™, there would be no reason to become a Commercial Affiliate. Firstly, these rules are already violated by the very fact of existence of Category:FIFA World Cup 2014, as both FIFA and World Cup are trademarked by FIFA exactly the same way as the cup is. Secondly, these situations (Nico Rosberg's helmet and this photo) can in no way be compared, as Nico Rosberg used the depiction of the cup in the design of his own helmet (something that is reserved to the abovementioned Commercial Affiliates), while this image depicts 23 players, coaches and a number of other people with the cup. There is no way to reserve this usage to Commercial Affiliates, as this would mean that hardly any photo from the event can be published (for example, even File:Shkodran Mustafi20140714 0012 (cropped).jpg is, according to your theory, illegal as the word FIFA is subject to the same restrictions as the cup). The point of COM:DM is exactly about such cases: there is a copyrighted work pictured, but it is in such context that it can't violate any restrictions — NickK (talk) 05:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Firstly the WMF which runs commons is a commercial organisation, secondly the WMF Licensing policy requires commons only to host works that have a Free Content License. This image contains at its very heart a work that is protected by FIFA and as such this image does not meet the WMF requirement of free works, no amount of wishing can change that. The image was framed on purpose, to include in it, and to capture, the protected work, therefore it's inclusion can not be considered COM:DM. With regard to the sponsors' use of the trophy, one can reasonably assume that they pay large sums of money to be associated with the event and in return FIFA will allow them to use the image of the trophy under licence, that licence would not be one that comes close to commons compatible. LGA talkedits 04:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes but Nico wasn't actually using the REAL trophy on his helmet, it was a "derivative work" ..not the real thing..there are laws on derivate works..what FIFA copyrights is people using the trophy's image to 'commercialize' their own product, yes that applies to the formula one which is one big billboard of commercials/product placements, it doesn't really apply to the event in question..I think most of you are reading this 'out of context' sponsors of FIFAWC over the decades have been allowed to promote/use the images but we are a non-profit/non-commercial organisation and we are not selling some product so IP Laws don't apply..--Stemoc (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: as per NickK and others. Yann (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Yann in my view erred in both commons policy and law with the closure of the previous DR. The inclusion of the copyright work (the trophy designed Italian artist Silvio Gazzaniga) is neither trivial or incidental in this picture, its inclusion was a result of a deliberate and conscious decision of the person taking the image to included it so therefore "de minimis non curat lex (The law does not concern itself with trifles) does not apply. The area of copyright law that does apply to the inclusion of the copyright work in images of this nature is the fair use provision which specifically covers works of this nature when it says "... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright" and that is exactly the use this image is being put to on the projects. However it is the expressed requirement of the Wikimedia Foundation that commons does not host works that require the reliance on such fair use provisions, we therefore need to move this image to projects that allow fair use and delete it from commons. LGA talkedits 01:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I do not read previous discussion but I doubt that the image was kept because of "reliance on [] fair use provisions". I also looked at the image before reading your argument and was surprised to hear that the reason for deletion is "inclusion of the copyright[ed] trophy designed [by] Italian artist". I was surprised because I did not noticed any trophies, so I went back to the image page and sure enough there is a nondescript blurry blob held by one of the players. It is hard to spot since many other people also hold their arms up and many hold other objects, like phones, hardly anybody looks at the trophy. I zoomed at it and it is quite blurry, not something that could be cropped and used to illustrate the trophy. The way I see it it is quite minor part of the image and fits requirements of de minimis. I doubt the photographer made "deliberate and conscious decision [] to included it". Assuming he noticed it at all, it is a photo of a team and if one guy on the team holds a trophy than there is no way to exclude it. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it were a minor part (which I will come back to) the trophies name figures in the filename, the description and on two of the tagged categories as well as being used to illustrate the trophy on multiple projects, those are four of the six tests used to determine that de minimis does not apply. On the subject of it being a minor part it is the focal point, the majority of those in the image are looking at the work, it is a key component, it is neither a trivial or incidental part of the image all of which go to show it is not de minimis. LGA talkedits 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Which two categories? You seem to be mixing 2014 FIFA World Cup (competition) and FIFA World Cup trophy. I do not see any trophy-related categories, but I do see two categories related to the competition. This completely normal: the image depicts the team celebrating their victory in the competition, thus there is nothing strange in adding it to categories related to the competition — NickK (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Even if it were a minor part (which I will come back to) the trophies name figures in the filename, the description and on two of the tagged categories as well as being used to illustrate the trophy on multiple projects, those are four of the six tests used to determine that de minimis does not apply. On the subject of it being a minor part it is the focal point, the majority of those in the image are looking at the work, it is a key component, it is neither a trivial or incidental part of the image all of which go to show it is not de minimis. LGA talkedits 04:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Speaking of fair use provisions is pretty funny if you use the regular definition limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work: in this case even COM:FOP will become fair use as this is literally an exception to the exclusive right (i.e. this exception allows us to take pictures of otherwise copyrighted objects). However, this is irrelevant to the discussion. I do not see what new arguments were brought by User:LGA here compared to the previous discussion, as this discussion was not based on fair use provisions, it was based on COM:DM. This case clearly corresponds to the provision Copyrighted work X is identifiable, but is a small part of a larger work, so that the larger work cannot easily be shown without showing X. X is a part of the larger work, and its inclusion is unavoidable. (see example with the team logo): the image depicts 23-man German football team celebrating which was impossible to picture without the cup (due to the nature of the ceremony Philipp Lahm was the last to arrive). I do not see what new arguments were brought to this nomination, and I do not see how this discussion can result in anything else then reiteration of previous arguments — NickK (talk) 04:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- No it is in "Copyrighted work X is a key part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo)." category, if you look at the six test for when DM does not apply it passes all of them. LGA talkedits 06:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep--Stemoc 05:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy Kept, no new and valid arguments have been provided so any further discussion is moot. Don't re-open DR's just because you don't like the outcome of the previous DR. --Denniss (talk) 14:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grand canyon national park timelapse from yaki point.webm
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Handapparat Modell 36 Sprechmuschel.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:FassadePKZwomen B88 Favorit PhOB 2014.jpg
Files uploaded by Wrightachris1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These two PDFs are (auto)biographies of two people related to the uploader. There are several problems with them though. Firstly both documents appear to be previously unpublished work so effectively the uploader is using Commons to publish them. Secondly and more importantly, the documents are peppered with numerous instances of text from Wikipedia without any attribution as required by the Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. There are also numerous photos, most of which appear to be PD but some are Commons images with CC licenses but the documents do not acknowledge the original authors. In File:Wright, C.Q. Captain US Navy, Chaplain.pdf these include:
- on page 2 is a diagram from some genealogical software but no indication of whether it is freely-licensed.
- on page 6 is part of the lead section from John Hunt Morgan.
- on page 10 is an excerpt from the History section of Lexington Theological Seminary.
- page 20 has text from the Wikipedia article about Thomas Oliver Selfridge, Jr. without any acknowledgement.
- page 23 shows a diagram from a genealogical program but no indication whether it is freely-licensed.
- page 26 includes two colour photographs without any indication of their copyright status. They were clearly not taken by the Captain since he died in 1924.
- page 27 includes text taken from Old Point Comfort and from a pervious version of Iskendurun but both without any acknowledgement.
- page 28 has two Commons maps (File:Turkey location map.svg and File:Italy location map.svg licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 but this document contains no attribution.
- page 29 begins with text taken from a previous version of Chesapeake and Ohio Railway but without any acknowledgement. next to the text is a copy of File:C&O locomotive 2705.jpg but without any acknowledgement of the author.
- page 30 includes text taken from USS Southery (IX-26) and USS Wabash (1855).
- page 31 has text taken from Horatio Alger, Jr..
In File:4) Capt C.Q. Wright II autobiography.pdf the infringements include:
- page 10 contains text from the Service History section of USS Chicago (1885) including the blurb for the image and the last paragrpah in that section.
- page 12 has two paragraphs taken from a previous version of Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.
- page 15 includes the lead paragraph from Mare Island Naval Shipyard.
- page 16 has an entire section taken from USS New York (ACR-2).
- page 18 has a paragraph from Cavite and two paragraphs from USS Abarenda (AC-13).
- page 21 has almost the whole of Sideboy.
- page 23 has a paragraph from Luzon as well as File:Pagsanjan Falls.jpg (CC-BY-2.0) and File:Ausflug Falls 1992 Manila.jpg (CC-BY-3.0).
- page 24 contains significant text from Fort Hancock, New Jersey and a paragraph from USS G-1 (SS-19½).
- page 25 has a whole paragraph from USS D-1 (SS-17).
- page 26 has a pargraph each from Brenton Reef Light and Whale Rock.
- page 27 has a pragraph from Overseas Railroad.
Pages 28 and 29 contain two photographs with no indication about their copyright status.
- page 30 and 31 contain screenshots of an unknown genealogy program.
- page 32 contaisn text from Long Key Fishing Camp.
- page 33 contains text from USS O-6 (SS-67).
- page 39 contains a colour photo with unknown copyright status.
- page 40 has two paragraphs from Fort Stotsenburg.
- page 41 has a paragraph from Goat Island (Rhode Island).
- page 43 has a large portion of USS B-3 (SS-12).
- page 44 contains a large portion of USS O-6 (SS-67).
I don't believe the uploader has done this deliberately but we cannot host these documents with so much lack of attribution.
Green Giant (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no argument with these comments. The opening paragraphs from my book which is about the Wright family indicates that photos and excerpts were taken from Wikipedia. All other photos and documents were taken from the Wright Family archives. Many of which have been shared with others. I will, with your approval, edit the original document and provide the credits required in detail. Will that be sufficient? Respectfully, Wrightachris1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.244.41.73 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Yes that would solve the attribution problem. However there remains the question of the book itself; we need to know if it has already been published, the author/publisher, the publication date and especially whether the copyright status. I have no particular opinion on whether the two subjects are notable but so far I have only seen one mention in JSTOR. Green Giant (talk) 19:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Green Giant,
I am in the process of editing the original documents. I am the author and compiler of our family history and biography. I am also the person responsible for our Ancestry.com file. All of the photos other than Wikipedia sourced are my family documents. The compilation was printed for me by Roullet Bookbinders and remains in my family's personal possession and has never been published or sold. The Wikipedia uploads will be the only publication of these notable men.
Respectfully; Wrightachris1
- Since you've stated elsewhere that you've used Ancestry.com, I've had a look at their terms and conditions and noted that "Ancestry and its licensors retain title, ownership and all other rights and interests in and to all information and Content on the Website." I believe this refers to the screenshots of the family trees and means those pages cannot be hosted here without permission from Ancestry.com. However you do retain the rights to the actual information in the diagrams. The first problem I highlighted above needs some more learned opinions, because I'm not sure that Commons can be used to publish previously unpublished material. @Ruslik0: and @Jmabel: because they responded on the original section at Help Desk. Green Giant (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
- Clearly "Commons can be used to publish previously unpublished material": most "own work" photos uploaded by participants are previously unpublished. However, Commons is mostly intended as a repository of images and sound, and is not normally a place for previously unpublished books. I gather that the content we are discussing here is exactly that. (If I'm wrong, my apologies, no time right now to look closely into this.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
No need for apology. I am a neophyte so prone to error. I do have an ancestry link on the page that would take the reader directly to the site. Since I am able to print this tree off the site and order printed copies from the site, I am hopeful there is clearance to use them. They can be deleted of course. I have tried to upload the corrected version for Capatain Carroll Quinn Wright Jr. but failed. It wont accept the upload. To your note about this site; I want to see this information about my 2 progenitors on the Wikipedia web site under Biography. How can I accomplish that? Thank you Wrightachris1
Deleted: Missing evidence of permission. If you are the uploader, please email COM:OTRS to get these restored FASTILY 08:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wrightachris1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Reupload without the OTRS permission
Basvb (talk) 17:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC) The original, unrevised upload should be deleted.
- The following text was moved by Basvb, it was initially below File:CQ Wright II, USN Captain autobiography, revised.pdf above (in reaction on).
I did not know I needed permission. This file was edited, and corrected and should be reviewed on its merits. I believe I made all of the proper corrections and would appreciate any constructive comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrightachris1 (talk • contribs)
- With permission I was referring to the images. The images should be attributed (unless they are PD). Stating: "from family collection" indicates a source and thus is a good first step, but it still should be in PD (Commons:Public domain. Commons:Credit line expends on the subject of attribution. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 20:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Als Eigentümer der Immobilie haben wir Strafanzeige erstattet. Die Aufnahme kam durch unbefugtes Betreten der Anlage zustande. Die Staatsanwaltschaft ermittelt wegen Hausfriedensbruch. 194.25.143.58 16:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep Die Aufnahme wurde in Einklang mit den Grundsätzen der in Deutschland geltenden Panoramfreiheit erstellt. Die Aufnahme erfolgte vor dem Burgtor, durch den Torbau der Burg Heimhof hindurch, zu dem ein dauerhaft öffentlich zugänglicher Weg (Burggasse) hinführt. Es wurden weder Zäune noch Türen, Tore oder sonstige Einfriedungen durchschritten (deutlich bessere Aufnahmen wären durch Durchschreiten des Burgtores möglich, was sich vielleicht beim Betrachten des Bildes erschließt). Zu diesem Fall siehe eventuell auch die Diskussion vom letzten Jahr (2013) auf de:User_talk:DALIBRI#Nicht authorisierte Aufnahme der Burg Heimhof Innenansicht. DALIBRI (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Die Aufnahme wurde durch unbefugtes Eindringen in unsere Privatsphäre erstellt. Da Sie durch das geschlossene Tor aus der Froschperspektive unten durch den Torflügel hindurch fotografiert haben, sind Sie in unseren privaten Bereich eingedrungen. Die Rechtsprechung sieht das bereits als Hausfriedensbruch. Ein deutlicher Hinweis "Betreten verboten" ist deutlich an der Außenseite des Toreingangs angebracht. Unser Privatgrund beginnt bereits einige Meter vor dem Tor. Das sieht die Polizei und die Staatsanwaltschaft übrigens ebenso wie unser Anwalt. Sie werden aufgefordert die unzulässige Aufnahme zu entfernen und Ihre Identität offen zu legen. Es darf darauf hingewiesen warden, dass außerdem das Kennzeichen meines PKW ersichtlich ist. Dies stellt einen weiteren Verstoß gegen unsere Rechte dar. Wir werden den Fall weiter verfolgen und bis zur Löschung der Aufnahme weiter gegen Sie vorgehen. gez. Die Eigentümer der Burganlage.
Comment: Die Burg an sich ist doch viel zu alt, um noch urheberlich geschützt zu sein. --Leyo 23:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Kept: There are no copyright issues here. We do not respond to accusations and threats by anonymous IP users. If the legal position is strong, this must be communicated from an appropriate source, using OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:23, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Wie bereits mehrfach geschrieben kam das Bild durch unberechtigtes Betreten der privaten Burganlage durch Hausfriedensbruch zustande. Das Bild verletzt unsere höchstrichterlich geschützte Privatsphäre. Zudem ist das Kennzeichen des Fahrzeugs eindeutig erkennbar. 194.25.143.58 18:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)Gerne darf sich ein Mitarbeiter von Wikimedia bei uns melden. Wir hatten bereits vor wenigen Tagen an die betreffende mail-Adresse eine separate Anfrage gestellt. Jedoch bislang ohne Antwort. Hier unsere mail-Adresse nmaier70@web.de Gerne senden wir auch einem Mitarbeiter von Wikimedia die eingescannte Strafanzeige und das Aktenzeichen der Staatsanwaltschaft. Vielleicht geht es dann schneller, wenn wir auch gegen Wikimedia Strafanzeige erstatten.
Da wir anonyme Ansprüche nicht Prüfen können: Bitte wende dich an das Support-Team oder die Rechtsabteilung der WMF. --Steinsplitter (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Nach Fehlermeldung zweiter Versuch. 109.43.48.222 08:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Wir haben uns auf Google als Eigentümer der Immobilie verifiziert. Die Bildaufnahme wurde illegal auf unserem Privatgrund aufgenommen. Die Aufnahme ist nicht durch die so genannte Panoramafreiheit gedeckt, da das Bild eine Innenaufnahme unseres Privatbereiches abbildet. Die Aufnahme wurde durch eine strafrechtlich relevante Handlung erstellt und ohne unsere Genehmigung hier veröffentlicht. Bitte löschen Sie nun die Aufnahme. Sollten Sie keine Löschung vornehmen, sind Sie verpflichtet eine ladungsfähige Adresse zuzusenden. Diese dient zur Zustellung weiteren Schriftverkehrs durch unseren Anwalt. Auch die Unkenntlichmachung meines KFZ-Kennzeichens ändert nichts an der Unzulässigkeit. Gez. Norbert Maier Eigentümer der Burg Heimhof. 109.43.48.222 08:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Speedily kept: No new rationale for deletion. This issue is not related to copyright. Contact our support team or the legal department of WMF, if necessary. Legal threats will not be accepted here. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Disruption by David Horvitz to have his art project on the Wikimedia Commons. See other related requests. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This guys is a sockpuppeter who has disrupted Commons for years. All of his uploads should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete agreed - --WPPilot (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, per nom, sockpuppet & not here to build encyclopedia but to build self up. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: see above Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Undeleted We aren't in the business of deleting in scope images simply because of who uploaded it. Part of the required licencing here on Commons is that images can be modified; i.e. cropped and uploaded as a new image where deemed required by individual editors. russavia (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of several photographs by the artist David Horvitz whose sole purpose in uploading the photo is part of his nebulous art project where his body is in frame. There is no clear way of knowing if this photograph even has the correct licensing because it was uploaded by one of several sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet accounts operated by David Horvitz and has no place on this project. This was previously deleted through COM:DR already but Russavia undeleted it out of process. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:14, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- After having been uploaded by so many multiple users, each claiming "own" work, it's not possible to know the copyright status of this image, COM:PRP suggests that items of this form of uncertain provenance be removed from the project. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete unclear (c)status --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nice shot. No serious question on copyright status.--Nowa (talk) 01:45, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is no way that we can be 100% sure that this photo was uploaded by the actual copyright owner due to the massive amount of accounts involved. The copyright is unclear and you need to end your disruption of these projects in your ass backwards attempt to promote this guy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination states who the photographer is. Great photo, how about we spend time doing something other than punishing Horvitz by deleting in scope content? --Fæ (talk) 08:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted As with all the rest of the images from this series, we cannot know who actually took the picture and therefore who actually owns the copyright. Aside from that, this user's deliberate attempts to spam Commons with his pictures cannot be encouraged. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Russavia undeleted this again to make a point when I went on the IRC channel asking for help in dealing with a recently discovered sockpuppet. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is zero doubt as to the authorship/copyright status of the images. It was taken on 27 April 2012 and uploaded on 1 May 2012. The image is high resolution and is in scope. Ryulong claims that the existence of File:A Nudist at Whale Beach Lake Tahoe.JPG is enough, and that the images are the same. They clearly are not. The image is in scope. Whilst the person in question may have uploaded some pointless, out-of-scope images, this is one example where there is no doubt as to its usefulness for our repository, being in scope of Category:Whale Beach, Lake Tahoe. russavia (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Whether or not it's in scope has nothing to do with the fact that you've undeleted this because of your counter-crusade against my work to have the photographs of this series off of the website due to the disruption and unclear copyright status. You don't get to go against a week old discussion just because you think the photo is useful when everyone else in all of these myriad discussions realized there might be issues with the rights as well as the fact that you are the only one to hold this view. We do not know the photographer. We just know the uploader and human subject. It's not like Horvitz keeps an Indonesian macaque with him to take the photo for him. There is no way he managed to set up a timer to get him yards away from the camera, and from the resolution he clearly doesn't have a remote control for the trigger on him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- For the record, I agree with russavia. I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that David Horvitz is the creator, uploader and rightful copyright holder of this image, no matter who actually snapped the shutter.--Nowa (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Whether or not it's in scope has nothing to do with the fact that you've undeleted this because of your counter-crusade against my work to have the photographs of this series off of the website due to the disruption and unclear copyright status. You don't get to go against a week old discussion just because you think the photo is useful when everyone else in all of these myriad discussions realized there might be issues with the rights as well as the fact that you are the only one to hold this view. We do not know the photographer. We just know the uploader and human subject. It's not like Horvitz keeps an Indonesian macaque with him to take the photo for him. There is no way he managed to set up a timer to get him yards away from the camera, and from the resolution he clearly doesn't have a remote control for the trigger on him.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep However, David you know you can resolve this nonsense about your sock game by writing to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org with a clear release statement for all your uploads, so please follow that path just to stop wasting everyone's time. I am keen to keep the good quality photographs you have released, but I will stop bothering to contribute to these discussions if the socks and dramah carry on, and on, as I have better ways to spend my volunteer time and my natural indulgence for this amusing fringe performance art has limits. --Fæ (talk) 07:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If Russavia disagrees he can go to com:UNDEL just like everyone else. This is not the way. Natuur12 (talk) 09:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Disruption by David Horvitz to have his art project on the Wikimedia Commons. See other related requests. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:08, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. This guys is a sockpuppeter who has disrupted Commons for years. All of his uploads should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 16:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Delete, per nom, sockpuppet & not here to build encyclopedia but to build self up. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep after cropping the human subject. Looking at Category:Pyramid Lake (Nevada), we don't have an equivalent image. While the quality of this one is questionable (taken on a hazy day, compositionally poor), I don't see a problem with keeping this one. While I agree that Horvitz is up to something, that doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. But see my opinion to the contrary at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Point Sur in Big Sur, California.JPG. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:21, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Same garbage as all other uploads. We can easily survive without this image. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
- Undeleted We aren't in the business of deleting in scope images simply because of who uploaded it. Part of the required licencing here on Commons is that images can be modified; i.e. cropped and uploaded as a new image where deemed required by individual editors. russavia (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
This is one of several photographs by the artist David Horvitz whose sole purpose in uploading the photo is part of his nebulous art project where his body is in frame. There is no clear way of knowing if this photograph even has the correct licensing because it was uploaded by one of several sockpuppet and/or meatpuppet accounts operated by David Horvitz and has no place on this project. This was previously deleted through COM:DR already but Russavia undeleted it out of process. —Ryūlóng (竜龙) 16:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- After having been uploaded by so many multiple users, each claiming "own" work, it's not possible to know the copyright status of this image, COM:PRP suggests that items of this form of uncertain provenance be removed from the project. As for image being "by the artist David Horvitz", we have no way of knowing that. We can see someone alleged to be Mr. Horvitz in the image, but whether he used a tripod/cable release combination of some sort or had someone else take the image (in which case the second person would hold copyright), we have no way of knowing. The situation has been further muddied by multiple users uploading the same images. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Delete unclear (c)status --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
- KeepImage in use. No serious question on copyright status.--Nowa (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be in use because again it is not clear if the uploaded was actually the copyright owner. Nowa you need to stop disrupting multiple projects in your attempt to laugh at the inability to keep one person from editing and uploading.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Useful and in-scope photograph with no copyright issue, in fact the nomination here confirms the name of the photographer. Deleting perfectly good images from Commons should not be used as a punishment, even you you think Horvitz is having a laugh. --Fæ (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted As with all the rest of the images from this series, we cannot know who actually took the picture and therefore who actually owns the copyright. Aside from that, this user's deliberate attempts to spam Commons with his pictures cannot be encouraged. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ricairon.jpg
Not educationally useful Magnolia677 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense mass nominations by this user High Contrast (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Previous nomination validly claimed this was not educational, but it got caught up in more questionable requests. Appears to be nothing more than some random woman's vacation photo. Not appropriate for Commons. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There are 3 other pics of women doing beach handstands in Category:Handstands on floors, but this is the only one showing one woman holding another in a handstand. It can illustrate beach handstands, assisted handstands, Latvian culture, etc. Rosario Berganza 00:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Image with unique theme, per Rosario Berganza, and in scope. Tm (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 08:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of identifiable person Magnolia677 (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Tag photo with personality rights --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Keep Nonsense nomination. Seems to be some troll action --High Contrast (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{Personality rights}} added. No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I cannot conceive of any way this photo might be used for educational purposes on Wikimedia sites. The image primarily depicts a young child and everything is blurry or indistinct. Would not be useful for article on air show and child is not notable. The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per file description "A boy waits for his picture of a B-52 to be signed by a 93rd Bomb Squadron aircrew member during the Slovak International Air Fest, Sept. 1, 2012, Sliac, Slovakia. The 93rd BS, assigned to the 307th Bomb Wing, Barksdale Air Force Base ,La., supported the air show with personnel and one B-52H Stratofortress." it is clear this is a public event, and is an image in scope. This shows an aeronautic event and a boy waiting for an "autograph", as per many boys of is age are fascinated by airplanes and aviation, and this is a fine image of this theme and other events in airshows besides the show off of aircraft . Also it depicts one of ways that the US make public relations with its allies. Per previous sentence this image illustrates the relationships between the USA and Slovakia. It is also a pretty good image where the blurring of background adds to the atmosphere. Also this image was previously kept in DR using the same rationale. Tm (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
No consensus to delete -FASTILY 08:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)