Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/08/13
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unlikely authorship. Low resolution, lack of metadata. · Favalli ⟡ 01:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Found elswhere on the web, not own work Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship. Low resolution, lack of metadata. · Favalli ⟡ 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: (c) per watermark Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Per: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Milanopablo.71 // this is another puppet of Pablo Milano Banfield - Amenazas aquí 03:17, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 08:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Fry1989 eh? 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted as (c)vio. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own work" without metadata 91.65.48.207 07:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: McZusatz (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The logo is not a selfwork. Sysywjel (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Kept.
Our policy on coats of arms and similar heraldry is clear -- the blazon, the words which describe the heraldry cannot be copyrighted. Specific realizations -- drawings -- from those words are subject to copyright. But new realizations, which this appears to be, have only their own copyright and are not derivative works of the blazon. Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:56, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
GERMANS DON'T LIKE SWASTIKKKAS! 84.61.138.168 18:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept: No valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
As erroneously stated in former deletion requests, this file doesn't show neither a coat of arms nor a heraldic thing, but a religious symbol being above TOO, what isn't Public Domain or CC-left, but a copyrighted symbol or logo. Delete it because of plainly copyright violence or get a permission for usage. Doc Taxon (talk) 16:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Comment the following considerations must be taken into account:
- The symbol is banned in the PRC. That means the copyright in the PRC is probably a moot point because it can’t be legally granted.
- The symbol may or may not be above COM:TOO-US.
- Keep in mind that every single component of the whole logo is not copyrightable (five swastikas, four yin-yang symbols, and two circles)
- however, per TOO-US, some images made up of similarly non-copyrightable elements have been copyrighted, but these often were altered just enough to be original.
- Overall there seems to be a strong precedent in the US towards imaginative originality (i.e. not using preexisting material), which this image, broadly speaking, lacks. Dronebogus (talk) 07:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- non-authoritative
Keep this file is legally under TOO as it consists only of a yin-yang symbol and two arrows surrounded by text. The FG emblem consists of four YinYangs and five swastikas, which doesn’t strike me as all that different— even before copy/paste that wasn’t exactly hard to draw, and as stated neither of those things are copyrighted. The circles count as simple frames which are rarely considered as adding to the TOO “score”. Dronebogus (talk) 07:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- In short there’s only three unique elements and they’re all in the public domain as either ancient or simple geometry. Dronebogus (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- the symbol is above TOO due to its idea, its arrangement design of the symbols and of its originality. Doc Taxon (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- In short there’s only three unique elements and they’re all in the public domain as either ancient or simple geometry. Dronebogus (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
don't delete due to PD-ineligible now. Thanks, – Doc Taxon 
Disk. • 12:50, 9. May 2022 (UTC)
- Why the sudden change of opinion? Dronebogus (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Re-uploading a previously deleted file. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Tehran City Montage 2014 June.png. Also COM:FOP#Iran. FaraM (talk) 20:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- INeverCry & Jameslwoodward, Please take care of this file. The user keeps uploading the same file which has already been deleted. Thanks. FaraM (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Previously deleted, therefore a speedy close . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Goodwood Plantation, Old Kitchen, Tallahassee, Leon County, FL HABS FLA,37-TALA.V,1-B- (sheet 2 of 8).png
[edit]Spambot upload NigelHowells (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; officially this is copyright of Clear Channel, and the uploader knows it. That's for sure. NigelHowells (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Esa fotografía la he hecho yo personalmente en Ledesma con mi cámara Sony, así que siento comunicarle que es mía y que no he violado ningún derecho de autor.--Lancastermerrin88 (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Exterior, general view from south east. Sept. 12, 1940. Photo by Stanly P. Mixon. - Lower Swedish Log Cabin, Darby Creek vicinity (Clifton Heights), Darby, Delaware County, PA HABS PA,23-DARB.V,2-2.tif
[edit]Copyrighted to Clear Channel, and copyvio NigelHowells (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; this belongs to UKRD Group, Minster FM in York, England own the copyright. Clear copyright infringement and office action needed NigelHowells (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a copyvio; copyright belongs to Liverpool City Council NigelHowells (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio; belongs to Boris Johnson, Mayor of London NigelHowells (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; this is copyrighted to Taylor Swift NigelHowells (talk) 22:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Edward Carrington House, 66 Williams Street, Providence, Providence County, RI HABS RI,4-PROV,25- (sheet 1 of 55).png
[edit]Copyvio; belongs to Miley Cyrus.Grounds for OFFICE action. NigelHowells (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; belongs to Global Radio NigelHowells (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; belongs to Taylor Swift. I have just spent over an hour on the phone with her about this, and she wants it speedily deleted. NigelHowells (talk) 22:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation; I have just spent an hour on the phone talking to Taylor Swift about this, speedy deletion. NigelHowells (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Edward Carrington House, 66 Williams Street, Providence, Providence County, RI HABS RI,4-PROV,25- (sheet 15 of 55).png
[edit]Copyright violation, belongs to Miley Cyrus NigelHowells (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted to UKRD, and used by Minster FM in York. NigelHowells (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: . Materialscientist (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Inclusion on the National Archives website does not make this PD. We need a better rationale than the one given. Geogene (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- We need something better than the source saying it's ok?:
|
This file is in the public domain because "The vast majority of the digital images in the Archival Research Catalog (ARC) are in the public domain. Therefore, no written permission is required to use them. We would appreciate your crediting the National Archives and Records Administration as the original source." From Frequently Asked Questions: Copyright, U.S. National Archives
|
- It's also the same image as: File:Aircraft spotter on the roof of a building in London. St. Paul's Cathedral is in the background - NARA - 541899.jpg
|
This media is available in the holdings of the National Archives and Records Administration, cataloged under the National Archives Identifier (NAID) 541899.
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing.
|
|
This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the National Archives and Records Administration as part of a cooperation project. The National Archives and Records Administration provides images depicting American and global history which are public domain or licensed under a free license.
|
|
|
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.
Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use.
|
 |
| This file has been identified as being free of known restrictions under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights. | ||
- Yeah, we do need something better than "The website says most of what's there is PD" which is the only licensing information available on the file page. Did you notice that that image over at NARA says "possible restrictions--copyright"? If you have better information then perhaps you should post it there on the file page. Geogene (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, since this is a duplicate image I presume it's eligible for speedy deletion. The duplicate's license tag seems to be in order. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- This file is not a duplicate of the file that you indicated, because this file has been uploaded in 2007, and the other file in 2011. Therefore, Keep --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- This file is not a duplicate of the file that you indicated, because this file has been uploaded in 2007, and the other file in 2011. Therefore,
- Anyway, since this is a duplicate image I presume it's eligible for speedy deletion. The duplicate's license tag seems to be in order. Geogene (talk) 19:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep Apparently, superseded images are not deleted. And since the uploader of this version has linked to a duplicate that has a valid license tag, I am withdrawing my delete nomination (and fixing this image's license tag). For future reference, note that statements like "most of these images are not copyrighted" is NOT equivalent to "all of these images are not copyrighted". Now I have to wonder how many copyrighted images from NARA are floating around Commons. But I'm satisfied that this is not one of them. Geogene (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Kept, nominator withdrew nomination.--KTo288 (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The file has a potential copyright infringement, which has a watermark from magazine Vogue girl Korean. (Also see: http://www.voguegirl.co.kr/content/view_03.asp?menu_id=03060300&c_idx=012203010000062) @assanges ‧ (talk | cont | uploads) 15:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Invalid licensing @assanges ‧ (talk | cont | uploads) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Dúvida sobre procedimento de inclusão! 177.81.24.46 20:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 20:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
copyvio source=http://kalyandidurgamondir.org/assets/images/photos/d1.jpg}} Bodhisattwa (talk) 09:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Natuur12. JuTa 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
new file upload 제주마육성팀 (talk) 01:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: If you really want to delete your recent upload, please use {{Speedy}} instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)- Speedied--KTo288 (talk) 00:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This image has been copied from an online source, for instance pitch.com. It comes from the same series of promotional photographs that resulted in this, this, this and this. The photo is not proved to be owned by the uploader, which is very unlikely. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Lupo. JuTa 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
This image is copyrighted to Getty Images, as can be seen here. It cannot be the property of the uploader. Binksternet (talk) 01:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Lupo. JuTa 23:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I accidently uploaded this picture which I do not own the copyrights of. Please delete it as soon as possible. Thanks! Clarissa Ledo (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. JuTa 23:27, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship. Low resolution, lack of metadata. · Favalli ⟡ 01:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio uploaded by sock of User:Milanopablojavier24. INeverCry 23:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
picture collection, plenty of small pictures not usable out of project scope Motopark (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Hedwig in Washington. JuTa 23:31, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
picture collection, plenty of small pictures not usable out of project scope Motopark (talk) 02:11, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Hedwig in Washington. JuTa 23:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
GERMANS DON'T LIKE SWASTIKKKAS! 84.61.138.168 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Is the Falun Gong logo illegal in Germany (and Austria)? --84.61.138.168 20:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WTF? First, Commons is not censored.- Please read Swastika, this is a very antique symbol. The Nazi Party adopted their variant (rotated in 45º, black with straight edges and rect sides, inside a white circle inside a red square -or a rectangle in their official flag-), based somewhat from the Thule society variant (black, not rotated with rounded sides and straight edges), that represents the Black Sun.
- Anyway, the Swastika (as the whole symbol) is not illegal in Germany, Australia, and neither country arround the world, and the Nazi varian is illegal in Germany and other countries unless if is used for educational purposes, like the files uploaded to Commons and used in the Wikimedia projects. So, please learn more history before making non-sense DRs as this. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy close: This is not the swastika of the Nazy party. No valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
SVg exists as File:Flag of the Welsh colony in Patagonia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: unused ba copy completely without a license. JuTa 21:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a sign which depicts a logo, and is therefore copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion · Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion · Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Self-promotion · Favalli ⟡ 00:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Not educationally useful · Favalli ⟡ 00:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dubious licenses, likely to be copyvio.
- File:Bas-Armagnac Chаteau d'Esperance 10 ans.jpg
- File:Арманьяк-карта.png
- File:Bas-Armagnac Chаteau d'Esperance Les Tresors de d'Artagnan 1968.jpg
- File:Ба Арманьяк Лабердолив 1904.jpg
- File:Ба-Арманьяк Домен Жоанда.jpg
- File:Page-02.gif
Sealle (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Derivative work of the prominent advertizing, which is also not permanent to be covered by FoP. Denniss (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- The advertising on the photo is hard to read. In addition, Telefónica is the leading telecommunications company in Spain. --CaS2000 (talk) 12:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Lowest quality penis image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
bad image, not realistically useful Broc (talk) 22:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Delete Unused, bad quality, and we have plenty of alternatives. --Yikrazuul (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)- Keep - this is pretty good in thumbnail, just low res is an issue. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep High quality images like this will rise reputation of commons to unforeseen levels! A must-have for every site which wants to be taken seriously! -- smial (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
- What exactly do you refer to "high quality"? --Yikrazuul (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete I think it's low quality even in thumbnail. Unlikely to find an educational use. --99of9 (talk) 12:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- We don't have anything else quite like it though. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Hold and wave (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Tough one. I can't decide... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 09:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jcb (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Lowest quality penis image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Low quality COM:PENIS Dronebogus (talk) 18:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Commons:Nudity#New uploads of penis photo, not special enough to be educationally useful A1Cafel (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; out of focus penis selfie. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Lowest quality penis image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 12:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Error in generating file: too much white space. Corrected version uploaded, ROC Curve Youden J.png Kognos (talk) 12:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Near duplication of File:Zhevakhova Gora.jpg. Yuriy Kvach (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:02, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
[1] PM3 (talk) 00:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
The IP user (see link above) claims that this is a copyright violation: "The copyright holder is not Adam Mittag but Positive-Propaganda e.V. Munich and was not relelased for publication; note that SKORE183 ist not the artist." I cannot verify that but just transfered the deletion request to here. --PM3 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It's graffitti, which we generally keep, but in addition, it's in Germany, where it's covered by FOP as it is obviously visible from a street and permanent. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted per evidence in ticket:2014092110009016. --Krd 16:07, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 04:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused, personal picture(s), out of Project Scope.
- File:Eduardo Privat.jpg
- File:Eduardo Privat (eduvat).jpg
- File:Arreglo floral de Rosas Azules 2.JPG
- File:Arreglo floral de Rosas Azules.JPG
- File:Arreglo floral de Rosas Iguana 01.JPG
Amitie 10g (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
text oinly, some homepage material Motopark (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.65.48.207 05:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Wvk (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but I'm just not seeing the claim of this being PD anywhere on the source's website. Courcelles 01:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- keep. The source website ( http://www.mathunion.org/general/prizes/2014/ ) states literally: Below is information about the awardees. The texts describing their work is copyright free and can be used in publications. This also applies to the photos of the prize winners below.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Courcelles, please correct your deletion request. This is the first woman in history to receive the Fields Medal. Someone might care about that but be put off by the deletion template. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The language of the website tripped me up initially to but they are clearly releasing copyright (eg PD) for the photos. --Masem (talk) 03:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm deleting this because it is not at all clear that the Mathunion's statement is true. First, everything has a copyright, so strictly speaking it starts out incorrect. However, we could read it simply as a way of saying that the image is PD. However, where did the MathUnion get the image? How is it that they own the copyright. That took me to the home page of Stanford University, where Mirzakhani is a professor (http://www.stanford.edu/) Lo and behold, the image is top center on Stanford's home page, with a copyright notice at the bottom. So, I ask, when Stanford needed an image to illustrate their home page, are they likely to have used one from MathUnion or from their own files? While the former is possible, it's much more likely that MathUnion used a Stanford image and has put an incorrect release on it.
Stanford might well be willing to give us a license via OTRS for its distinguished faculty member's WP:EN page, but until it does this is a {{Speedy}}. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The photographer is M. Oxenburg. There is no proof of {{PD-China}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If this was published before 1964 it is PD, if published after that, it is still under copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the uploader, the author of this photograph is US Signal Corps. So there is no proof of {{PD-China}}. Even if the author were US Signal Corps, there is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The picture in inappropriate and offending. It was never taken with Krystian Zimerman's, the artist, approval. Thank you! 188.155.115.96 05:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC) The picture in inappropriate and offending. It was never taken with Krystian Zimerman's, the artist, approval. Thank you! Moritz85 (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- If it was taken in a public place and doesn't show him engaged in any disreputable activity, then it doesn't invade ordinary privacy rights. If you're connected to him, and were willing to offer up a better photograph (under a free license) to replace this one, then probably a deal could be done... AnonMoos (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I am connected to Krystian Zimerman. I have uploaded a better photograph under free license: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Krystian_Zimerman_2014.jpg Moritz85 19:59, 18 August 2014
Kept: This image is widely used and therefore cannot be deleted except for copyvio. Also, please see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Krystian Zimerman 2014.jpg . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Dubious "own works". See also http://www.burdurlular.org/bilim_adamlarimiz/mehmet_hatipoglu/mehmed_hatipoglu.htm
91.65.48.207 06:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.65.48.207 07:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused organisation diagramm of an unknown clinic, out of scope. Holger1959 (talk) 07:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.65.48.207 07:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.65.48.207 07:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 91.65.48.207 07:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Useless without the name of this school/university 91.65.48.207 08:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Contentless, unmantained (*) and obsolete haphazard gallery; its uses are much better served by Category:Ruscus aculeatus. *(Hardly an recent non-bot edit; no new images added since 2010 — the category got 10 new images in the last 12 months alone.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 08:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Not a reason for deletion. The category has 56 files, not all of which are good, which makes the subject a perfect candidate for a separate gallery. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Contentless, unmantained (*) and obsolete haphazard gallery; its uses are much better served by Category:Ruscus aculeatus. *(Hardly an recent non-bot edit; no new images added since 2010 — the category got 10 new images in the last 12 months alone.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 22:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep Starting a new DR with exactly the same reason within twelve hours of the closure of the old one borders on vandalism -- it certainly isn't helpful to the project.
I certainly don't understand why you feel so strongly about this gallery, but please remember that policy specifically provides for galleries in parallel with categories and encourages them when the category is large, as this one is. Why don't you spend your time correcting the problems you see here instead of wasting other people's time on repetitive DRs? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy keep Gallery with more informations. Orchi (talk) 10:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Orchi, which part of «Please do not make any edits to this archive.» you fail to understand? If you want, for whatver ponderous reason, to vote for keep on a DR which was already closed to keep, at least do it outside the fenced off area, okay? (This already happen twice in this thread. Vandalism, too? Or maybe the fact that botanical incompetence, ignorance of Commons’ curating goals, and lack of wikitext skills go hand in hand?) -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward, if you stop conflating your roles as the admin who closes and the user who discusses, maybe this could be more fruitful. My reasons to delete this “gallery” (sadly identical to those usable to file DRs for 99% of all other files in the same namespace) were expressed in my nomination and your didn’t bother to address them, instead voting for keep (and indeed keeping in one go) based on some boilerplate pablum. If you seriously think this page does anything else than misinform the casual user on the actual wealth of media about Ruscus aculeatus hosted in Wikimedia Commons, then please actually address the nomination and keep it open to allow follow-up and wider discussion. (As for your accusation of borderline vandalism against me, it is ludicrous — I think you mean to say instead I’m being impolite? Well, between allowing misleading content to be further hosted in Commons and risking to hurt your feelings as the closing admin, I’ll always chose the latter.) -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- Policy allows, indeed encourages, parallel galleries and categories, particularly when the category is large, as this one is. Trying to get the gallery deleted against policy is a waste of time. Why don't you take your time and your energy and use it to improve the gallery instead of trying to get it deleted against policy? . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
generally wrong information Busisiwe Jacqui B Motau (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
delete it please Rahulazm (talk) 12:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
please delete this asap Rahulazm (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a sign which depicts a logo, and is therefore copyright. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
저작권자 권한으로 삭제 신청 양념파닭 (Talk · Contribution) 22:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Google is not at its best here, so I am not sure I understand, but please note that the license cannot be revoked and the file is actually in use. Note also that 양념파닭 is the uploader using a different name. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:16, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Jameslwoodward: 양념파닭 = GBW1541 its same people --양념파닭 (Talk · Contribution) 09:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Creative Commons license is irrevocable, as such file cannot be deleted. (+In use.) — regards, Revi 10:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 14:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Video game screenshot. No evidence of permission. Publisher Chronic Logic is "© Copyright 2002-2013 Chronic Logic LLC All rights reserved"
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 1 (detail).jpg
- File:Emacs Tetris (detail).png
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 5.jpg
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 4.jpg
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 3.jpg
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 2.jpg
- File:Triptych game - official screenshot 1.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 15:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all except the Tetris image -- that consists only of basic geometric shapes (squares) and I do not think it would be eligible for copyright. -Pete F (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Isn't that rather like saying a poem cannot be copyrighted because words are not eligible for copyright? Indeed, per Kay Berry Inc v. Taylor Gifts Inc. 421 F. 3d 199 (3rd Cir. 2005): "'[A]ll creative works draw on the common wellspring that is the public domain. In this pool are not only elemental `raw materials,' like colors, letters, descriptive facts, and the catalogue of standard geometric forms, but also earlier works of art that, due to the passage of time or for other reasons, are no longer copyright protected.' Tufenkian Import/Export Ventures, Inc. v. Einstein Moomjy, Inc., 338 F.3d 127, 132 (2d Cir.2003).' When an author combines these elements and adds his or her own imaginative spark, creation occurs, and the author is entitled to protection for the result. Feist Publ'ns, Inc., 499 U.S. at 345, 111 S.Ct. 1282." As pertains to software UI in the present case, the developer indeed combined geometric forms and chose colours, sizes, border shading/texture, configurations, etc. Эlcobbola talk 19:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
non-free media El Funcionario (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
non-free media El Funcionario (talk) 15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
non-free media El Funcionario (talk) 15:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If 'Mail.ru' is the copyright holder, then OTRS permission needed. 213.87.137.201 15:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Appears on several (c) web sites -- unlikely own work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
How did this get on the website? Ugh, someone clicked on a PNG preview of this beyond-TOO image from Wikipedia and downloaded it here, slapped a false Creative Commons license on it, and nobody cares for some reason. Why has it taken so long for anyone, including me, to do this? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete You wonder "how did this get on the website"? .... simply because hundred of files are uploaded here per day, and the admin and editors have their own occupations appart from being here, I guess. This logo is far above the ToO for me. - Fma12 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. And it is above the ToO... but the license says CC-BY-SA. This logo was first used before that was even widespread. And why is there no trademark license either? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)
- I guess the uploader did not know what license to use and put "own work" so the cc-by-sa appeared automatically. - Fma12 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- He or she should have known better... and only two people are discussing this. Come on, we need more viewpoints! -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess the uploader did not know what license to use and put "own work" so the cc-by-sa appeared automatically. - Fma12 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course. And it is above the ToO... but the license says CC-BY-SA. This logo was first used before that was even widespread. And why is there no trademark license either? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Vector version available, File:Nickelodeon logo new.svg. Fry1989 eh? 19:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Vector version of my image is available -> this is not needed any more MartinThoma (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: We do not routinely delete preexisting raster images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Does it make a difference that I am the author of the raster image? --MartinThoma (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
An image was used in a deleted article in Russian Wikipedia and is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope MMFE (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope MMFE (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope MMFE (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope MMFE (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope MMFE (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
deleted before as poster, now removed text part, see uploaders history Motopark (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
too poor quality AlessioMela (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Poor quality is not a valid reason for deletion. The picture is somewhat blurry, but have sufficient resolution to make it encyclopedical. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- IMHO resolution is not a valid point for this photo, really, it's difficult for my eyes to keep the look on this :-( --AlessioMela (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: We have 27 images of this space. This double image is not usable. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
imho non-free content as source "blogspot.com" mentioned, Roland zh (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Per COM:DW. Stefan4 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- I believe de minimis would apply, since the park is the subject, and the photo of Cruz is only a portion of the park. I think the third and fifth examples in the Guidelines section are comparable to this piece.
- Also, does freedom of panorama and the fact that the work is permanently installed in a public place, apply here? Nightscream (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- COM:DM is not applicable since the photo is a major purpose of the image. It is only de minimis if the copyrighted work is insignificant and unavoidable. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is claimed to be from the United States, which only has freedom of panorama for buildings. This is not a building. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- So would you propose that the park be photographed? Nightscream (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- De minimis is all about how the image is used. If the purpose of the image is to show the park, then it is maybe fine. If the purpose of the image is to show this photograph, then it is not de minimis. When the image is used in an article, the use must be unrelated to the inclusion of the copyrighted photograph. For example, a photograph showing this photograph can't be used in w:Celia Cruz, as the use there clearly refers to the inclusion of the copyrighted photograph. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- So would you propose that the park be photographed? Nightscream (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Nightscream, not everything can be photographed for Commons. This small park may well be one such thing as its only distinctive features have a clear copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Fountain created in the 2000's. No FoP in France. Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 21:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship. Low resolution, lack of metadata. Probably screenshoot. · Favalli ⟡ 01:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Chris 73 (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:29, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
picture collection from two pictures, one of them are http://www.macwallhd.com/wp-content/Wallpapers/Abstract/City%20Building%20Download%20Mac%20Wallpapers%20Urban-7175061816.jpeg Motopark (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- deleted -- Chris 73 (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Belarus. The object in the photo is train station in Minsk which was built in 2000. Architect Виктор Крамаренко (Viktor Kramarenko) is still living, 195.50.31.213 04:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Another penis selfie. Commons already has plenty of these, this one is nothing special Grayfell (talk) 06:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I made a mistake during the creation of a category. Crazy runner (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
"Gestapo-Bild, in Privatbesitz des Autors" Owned by uploader, but not own work. No valid license. No permission. 77.184.50.248 07:42, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep Acording to de:Lichtbild it becomes PD 50 years after publication or after creation.--Sanandros (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Low quality penis image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Per source: [2] CC license is NC-ND Эlcobbola talk 14:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Chris 73 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Slowking4 as no source (No source since). There is a (defund web link) source, which is likely correct. I do however not see evidence of permission on the site and under that issue this file probably has to be deleted. Basvb (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- why are you undeleting so you can delete again. there is no deeplink to a source - it is a 404 with no internet archive, and no license page with a CC-BY. there is no indication is was ever CC-BY. this is an out of process conversion. Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 04:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did not undelete the file, I simply removed a no-source tag where there was a source. I only do that for cases where I think discussion would benefit the file in question and the file is useful (in use mostly). Basvb (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- there is no source: it is a 404. what is there to discuss, when you say delete? Slowking4 § Richard Arthur Norton's revenge 02:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- I did not undelete the file, I simply removed a no-source tag where there was a source. I only do that for cases where I think discussion would benefit the file in question and the file is useful (in use mostly). Basvb (talk) 10:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Archive.org has the press kit (the deadlink in the author field) archived here, which indicates a CC-by 4.0 license. Эlcobbola talk 16:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per Эlcobbola. --Yann (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Per source: [3] CC license is NC-ND Эlcobbola talk 14:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted -- Chris 73 (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:32, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Bogus license. Purported source site says "2011 Copyright © China Digital Times" with no mention of CC license. Эlcobbola talk 14:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
If the logo, the sculpture, and the photograph are all the uploader's work, then the image is out of scope as personal art. If the sculpture or the logo are not the uploader's work, then the image infringes on their copyrights. Either way, we can't keep this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Perez lozano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Эlcobbola talk 16:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Mappa contenente alcuni errori, sostituita da una con sfondo geografico e in formato svg (File:Genova mappa servizio ferroviario urbano.svg). Sono l'autore di entrambe Friedrichstrasse (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
probably copyrighted movie poster. 77.184.189.177 18:24, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyrights Violation Meysam (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
missing permission; seems like fan art since it's made with photoshop; won't be used in an article Lady Lotus (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
possible false claim to ownership per http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sussex.tab.co.uk/files/2014/01/393px-Cara_Delevigne.png&imgrefurl=http://sussex.tab.co.uk/page/22/&h=808&w=530&tbnid=OnN5h54FbsCyMM&zoom=1&tbnh=277&tbnw=182&usg=__QtIhZRkOKe7RDgqPyomISe5Jn1s= Lady Lotus (talk) 19:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment best to reach out to the uploader in a case like this and see if they know about COM:OTRS -- has this been done? -Pete F (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
per Com:PCP probably not own work, all other uploads (c)vios. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 21:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Este escudo no es el oficial de Villamiel de Toledo y está dando origen a varias confusiones a nivel Ayuntamiento. Ruego sea eliminado y puesto en su lugar el que en su dia puse yo como actual Alcalde de Villamiel de Toledo. Gracias. Ferjimort (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Commons should not feature official designs, as they are most frequently protected. This coat of arms is designed accordingly to the heraldic blazon approved in the Castilla la Mancha Gazzette ([4], Argent, three beehives gules. Chief gules charged with an argent cross. Spanish Royal crown in crest.) within the scope and guidelines of the Heraldry & Vexillology Project in the Spanish Wikipedia. Cheers, Mayor.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fry1989 eh? 19:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Nothing prevents the city of Villamiel to release the "official" version of the coat of arms and name it as sort of File:Escudo de Villamiel - Oficial.svg. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Iran. Therefore, this image infringes on several architects' copyrights. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Text reproduced here is protected by author rights. Aga (d) 21:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Iran. Therefore, this image infringes on the architect's copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, replaced by File:2-Methyl-2-butene hypochlorous-acid.png DMacks (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Amon Göth
[edit]Claimed to be PD-Old. Yet the author, one R. Tisch, is named and said to have sold this image in the 1960ies. When he was still alive in the 1960ies, he definitely hasn't been dead for at least 70 years, and this image is definitely NOT PD-Old (70 years pma).
- File:Amon Göth mistress Ruth Irene Kalder (1943) Płaszów (crop).jpg
- File:Amon Göth mistress Ruth Irene Kalder (1943) Płaszów.jpg
Rosenzweig τ 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- It all depends on how we interpret the fact that R. Tisch sold all his Płaszów camp photographs in the 1960s. Selling them meant selling his rights which is a standard understanding of the law. At that point the photographs were donated by an undisclosed buyer – a former KL prisoner – to a public institution thus waiving his own rights as well. Poeticbent talk 05:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a lot of speculation. Do you have any actual proof for this? Contrary to what you seem to think, selling photos (= photographic prints or negatives) does not automatically mean selling the rights to them as well or "waiving" them when donating to some institution. Even if we assumed your theory was correct, the PD-Old license tag used is incorrect. But to actually assume that your theory is correct, we'd need more than just speculation. --Rosenzweig τ 11:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't suppose Mr. Tisch kept the negatives with the intention of selling them again to someone else. That in fact, would be the most extreme form of speculation about their provenance. Poeticbent talk 20:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- So no proof for your theory? --Rosenzweig τ 23:37, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a proof in reverse from the Public Catalog of the United States Copyright Office. One Raimund Tisch does not hold any copyrights. Poeticbent talk 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not in the USA perhaps. But these are not US photos, so their US copyright status is only ancillary. --Rosenzweig τ 11:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
- Here's a proof in reverse from the Public Catalog of the United States Copyright Office. One Raimund Tisch does not hold any copyrights. Poeticbent talk 03:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Since we know that the photographer was alive in the 1960s, these have copyrighta. The question is, who owns them? Since we don't know whether the copyrights were transferred or not -- in the case of many informal sales there are no written transfers as required by law in most jurisdictions, it is entirely possible that the photographer's heirs still own the copyrights. It is possible, albeit unlikely, that Tisch's undisclosed buyer owns the rights. However, it is most likely that the rights were, in fact, transferred to the "public institution" mentioned above. Unfortunately, that is Yad Vashem, which definitely does not freely license the works that it owns, see http://www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/about/terms_and_conditions.asp. So, no matter who owns the copyright, it is not freely licensed. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
image used only by a promotional page deleted off enwiki DS (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination, scope is unclear, and copyright status as well. -Pete F (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, File:Bhasani Novo Theatre.jpg
Category:Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Novo Theatre has more better quality images. ~ Nahid Talk 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: "There are better pictures" is not a valid argument for deleting a picture. "Better" is subjective. Also, even if the other pictures are "better", also keeping this is not a problem. --Ragib (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- A poor quality file might be kept, especially if Commons has very few or no similar files already or in such case where the subject is rare and/or difficult to capture but where the subject is easy to capture or if Commons already hosts many similar or better quality examples and the low-resolution file is superseded then there is no realistic educational value to host the poor quality file. ~ Nahid Talk 14:40, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: None of the images in the cat are particularly good and these offer a different point of view. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Scans from somewhere and "My computer" as a source. We need COM:OTRS permission from the actual copyright holder. The second question is, whether these images are in scope. (a lot of text)
- File:The world movement for nonviolence.jpg
- File:World March for Peace and Nonviolence.jpg
- File:World peace.jpg
- File:Peace walk.jpg
- File:Dhammayietra for Lam Pa Tao River Basin .jpg
- File:Dalai Lama Peace Education Summit 2011.jpg
- File:Dalai Lama 14th Peace and Happiness.jpg
- File:Dalai Lama 14th.jpg
- File:A Buddhist Perspective.jpg
- File:Phra Paisal Visalo.jpg
- File:Culture of Peace.jpg
- File:Buddhism in Siam 2011.jpg
- File:Nirvana-นิพพาน.jpg
- File:Buddhist Meditation Siam.jpg
- File:Buddhist Meditation.jpg
- File:Buddharupa.jpg
- File:ศาสนพิธี.jpg
- File:Nonviolence.JPG
- File:Walking for Peace.JPG
- File:Peace is every step.JPG
- File:Peace walk.JPG
- File:Inner Peace.JPG
- File:Buddhist monasticism 01.JPG
- File:Nonviolence .jpg
- File:Dhammayietra for Lampatao River Basin .jpg
- File:Dhammayietra in Thailand.jpg
- File:Dhammayatra .jpg
- File:Dhammayatra for The River in Thailand "Protect Ping and Chao Phra Ya River".jpg
- File:Buddhism in Thailand.jpg
- File:Alms 01.jpg
- File:Bhikkhu in Thailand.jpg
- File:Religions for Peace 002.JPG
RE rillke questions? 15:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Three more:
- These seem to be some kind of text and image montages made by the user, who seems to be identical with this Fotopedia user, using text from the English wikipedia and images from various sources. Apart from copyright and attribution problems (I'm not sure if all of the images are ok to use and properly attributed), the main problem is with project scope. Is Commons the right place for this sort of thing? Some of the images are also covered by separate deletion requests. Rosenzweig δ 17:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As per nom. --Hold and wave (talk) 20:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per Rosenzweig. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Delete As I seem to have started this, I'm of course for a complete removal. --hdamm (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
Either these are "own work" as claimed, in which case they are personal art and therefore out of scope, or, much more likely, they are the work of someone else, in which case there is no evidence of permission. In either case, they cannot be kept on Commons.
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Youth activism in Thailand.Playing for change.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Youth activism in Thailand.Spirit in Education..jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Youth activism in Thailand.Volunteerings matters 2011.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Volunteering Matters.2011..jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight .Volunteering Matters 2011.01.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 07.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 014.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 013.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Peace is every step..jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Thailand..jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight.Culture of Peace..jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 026.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 022.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 012.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 021.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 0012.jpg
- File:At first Dhamma.sight 03.jpg
- File:โทณะวณิก ต้นสาย ๗.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 17:48, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted to UKRD, Minster FM in York, England, own the copyright. NigelHowells (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see the base for "Copyrighted to UKRD, Minster FM in York, England", yet this is irrelevant, see the copyright tag in the image file. Materialscientist (talk) 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Claimed to be PD-Old, but no reason is given why this should be PD. No author is named, and as this photo apparently is from 1945, it simply cannot be PD-Old. Rosenzweig τ 22:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 17:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military-Army}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 03:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation from here: http://www.gagster.at/teamkontakt.cfm;
- see also:
- Waiting for OTRS-Ticket or delete? --1971markus (☠): ⇒ Laberkasten ... 22:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Reading the "about webpage" which is listed in the source, http://ledoroad.home.comcast.net/~ledoroad/Ledo_About.html provides the following information by the webmaster of that site. "On various websites I found many Department of the Army and Signal Corps. photos of the roads and these images have been compiled here along with stories of the Ledo Road as historical reference. " Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Per website description. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the own work claim. Or is the uploader the (c)holder of the newspaper? Just an example.
- File:Gimnasia Mendoza campeón 2001 de Liga Mendocina.jpg
- File:Platea en el ascenso 2013-14.jpg
- File:Popular Este en el ascenso 2013-14.jpg
- File:Equipo del ascenso 2013-14 (Gimnasia).JPG
- File:Panorámica del Estadio Víctor Legrotaglie.jpg
- File:Camiseta GimnasiaMza 2013-14.jpg
- File:Legrotaglie (Gimnasia) - Gramajo (Rosario Central).jpg
- File:Pes2014-logo-official.png
- File:Mariana Rios 03.jpg
- File:Hinchada de San Martín de Mendoza.jpg
Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:21, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete on everything, with the exception of Keep File:Pes2014-logo-official.png that is a {{PD-textlogo}}.
Oppose It is clearly not a text(only) logo. No permission. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- There are several versions of the PES logo in Category:Pro Evolution Soccer logos and sincerely, I don't see them complex enough to be above the ToO. Fma12 (talk) 15:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- Deleted the images that were clearly copies of newspapers. -- Chris 73 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: All copyvios deleted. I think the PES logo is sufficiently simple, but feel free to start a new DR to focus on that image specifically. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Disputing User:Yann's claim that it is {{PD-textlogo}}. It may well be the case in the US, however as an Austrian company their logo would seem to be just as complex as the ones noted as protected at Commons:TOO#Austria. Therefore as there exists considrable doubt that this is indeed free in the source country it should be deleted per COM:PRP. LGA talkedits 07:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: If anyone ever needs this on the English Wikipedia, just let me know and I'll do the transfer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
According to the uploader, the author of this photograph is US Signal Corps. So there is no proof of {{PD-China}}. Even if the author were US Signal Corps, there is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}.Takabeg (talk) 04:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- But it could be easily {{PD-US-no notice}}. Would be interesting where it was published. Someone speaking Chinese?--Sanandros (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:55, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Closed discussions from Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Cloud Gate
|
|---|
|
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP in the US for sculptures.
russavia (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Without OTRS permission after 9 days Alan (talk) 11:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP in the US for sculptures.
russavia (talk) 16:25, 19 March 2014 (UTC) Deleted -FASTILY 07:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
As per this decision.
-- Tuválkin ✉ 09:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted some, kept some. For File:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg, since it's being used to illustrate the plaza, it would be a better to crop out The Bean rather than deleting the whole thing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:11, 22 August 2014 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Obviously, it's time for another Cloud Gate DR. I've tried to be as generous as I felt was reasonable about only including the images that violate the copyright in this sculpture. For context, en:Cloud Gate is a public sculpture erected in 2006 in McCormick Park in Chicago. It is not only copyrighted (with no FOP for sculpture in the US), but the City of Chicago has licensed it from the artist, and requires permission for any commercial use of photographs (which is incompatible with Commons). I've tried to weed out the ones where either the Bean is a de minimis aspect of an image of the park itself, or where it's shape is not visible and it's only 'a mirrored object'. Most of these are simply not okay.
Reventtalk 12:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Regular cleaning of this category of new uploads of images that depict too much of this copyrighted work of art. - Reventtalk 22:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:22, 3 June 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No COM:FOP for sculpture in the US, as per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above.
— Jeff G. ツ 04:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC) In File:The Bean and McCormick Tribune Plaza.jpg, the bean is de minimis, image hardly even has the bean in the photo. The sculpture is not even visible in File:Tented cloud gate.jpg. File:Cloud gate construction.jpg is simply a photo of a construction site, the sculpture had yet to be erected. It is inarguably de minimis in File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg. It is also minimus in File:Millennium park,chicago.JPG. It is hardly even visible in File:Millenium Park (7391867314).jpg. Seems to be de minimus in File:Bean from Kemper Tower (14958184744).jpg. Also, hardly the primary focal point of the image File:Chicago Bean.jpg. Not at all included in the image File:Cloud gate, Chicago skyline.jpg, as far as I can tell (not sure why it is in this category). Certainly not included in the image File:2008TIBE Day5 Hall1 ThemeSquare On the Road with Cloud Gate.jpg (should not be in this category at all). Not the primary focal point of the image File:The Bean - Millennium Park - panoramio.jpg. Some of these certainly should be spared, and the category itself should not be deleted. SecretName101 (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
The deletion of File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg would be particularly catastrophic, and utterly unnecessary. This is a valuable (and widely-used) image, in which the sculpture inarguably is de minimus. SecretName101 (talk) 04:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: most per nom. 'kept some due to de minimis or similar. --JuTa 09:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
still copyrighted, noting here so that it may be undeleted someday Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Deleted: speedily deleted as copyvios. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 05:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Copyrighted work, no freedom of panorama for public art in the US.
— Rhododendrites talk | 16:43, 26 March 2020 (UTC) Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
No FOP for sculpture in the US, and per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above.
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of them can be cropped or have the work of art blurred out of them, and still be useful. I deleted the obvious cases, though.-- Darwin Ahoy! 16:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Another set of derivative work copyvios: of a sculpture protected by copyright by its living artist w:Anish Kapoor. Previously these were categorized under Category:Millennium Park so they got undetected. See [9] and [10] for the basis of nomination for these perhaps last non-trivial images of the copyrighted sculpture. There is no freedom of panorama for all copyrighted artworks in the United States, see COM:FOP US. US de minimis is sharper (COM:DM United States), as it uses "triviality" concept instead of "incidental".
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Still another set of derivative work copyright violations. No FOP of any sort for copyrighted public works in the U.S. except architecture, and sculptor Anish Kapoor does not allow free culture (commercial) reuses of visual appearances of "his" artwork! See also above nominations. American de minimis uses triviality concept instead of incidental/accessory concept like those in Europe or much of Asia.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Cleaned up the nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC) This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
There is no freedom of panorama for copyrighted public art in the United States, and none of the nominated images show the sculpture in a trivial manner (U.S. de minimis is too narrower than European ones). This sculpture has been the subject of a copyright lawsuit by its living sculptor, Anish Kapoor, against a commercial user, NRA. See also the following resources regarding Kapoor's lawsuit against NRA: Artnet, The Guardian, and BBC.
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
Deleted all but one per DM. — Racconish 💬 15:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Several new files have been added that populate this category. I'm also tagging several older files that haven't been discussed before to gather consensus on whether they should be kept on de minimis grounds. At issue is that these files depict Cloud Gate, a copyrighted sculpture permanently installed in the US where there is no freedom of panorama for public art. Quoting an earlier successful deletion request, "this sculpture has been the subject of a copyright lawsuit by its living sculptor, Anish Kapoor, against a commercial user, NRA. See also the following resources regarding Kapoor's lawsuit against NRA: Artnet, The Guardian, and BBC." IMO the litigousness of the copyright holder should not affect our consistent application of standards around copyright law but it's been brought up before so I suppose it's worth bringing up again. First, there is one photo that is entirely of Cloud Gate for which a de minimis rationale would not apply: Second, there are several photos in which Cloud Gate appears at a distince within the larger context of the setting. A de minimis arguement could be made for these, and we have kept two files in the past (File:2005-10-13 2880x1920 chicago above millennium park.jpg and File:Millennium park,chicago.JPG) on these grounds. However, in both of those cases Cloud Gate is a significantly smaller and less focal portion of the image.
Third, several photos depict a portion of Cloud Gate up close, often with the inclusion of other elements in the foreground or background. Do these files qualify as de minimis inclusion of the copyrighted work? Consider this file which had most of Cloud Gate coropped out to focus on the background elements instead.
Finally, one photo is simply a selfie taken by way of the mirrored surface of Cloud Gate. This might be argued to be entirely a photo of the sculpture, or to be a completely de minimis usage. In either case, I'm nominating it here for consensus: Any of these files that aren't deleted (or that are partially cropped and saved) can be added to Category:Incidental views of the Cloud Gate. Thanks! Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - kept one. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC) |
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
,_EOR_route_339,_22_June_2014.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_017.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![25 File:李海利"Mystic Balld"概念照.jpg](#File:李海利"Mystic_Balld"概念照.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_EOR_route_339,_22_June_2014.jpg){kind=link}
,_EOR_route_339,_22_June_2014.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
,_EOR_route_339,_22_June_2014.jpg){kind=link}
,_EOR_route_339,_22_June_2014.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_017.JPG){kind=link}
_017.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_017.JPG){kind=link}
_017.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![15:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/08/13#c-Assanges-2014-08-13T15:05:00.000Z-File:李海利"Mystic_Balld"概念照.jpg){kind=link}
![18:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2014/08/13#c-Denniss-2014-08-14T18:12:00.000Z-File:李海利"Mystic_Balld"概念照.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_P%C5%82asz%C3%B3w_(crop).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_P%C5%82asz%C3%B3w.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Gramajo_(Rosario_Central).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4131954934).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4865734246).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night_2.jpg){kind=link}
_at_night.jpg){kind=link}
,_downtown_Chicago.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(302020237).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_night_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_at_night.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_downtown_Chicago.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(302020237).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179489717).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179490139).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179492567).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179493853).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179495047).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9179495495).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9181703314).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(9181706070).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004162135).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004164355).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004257826).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004321464).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004322814).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004323314).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Millennium_Park,_Chicago,_Illinois_(11004382903).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago_1_26_18_(26388865178).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago_1_26_18_(39343630775).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Chicago,_IL.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_jmcmichael.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(4).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_(5).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198161).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198196).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198236).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549620631).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549628831).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549635591).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35640530046).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35679751185).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198259).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198289).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(34839034874).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(34839040474).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Millenium_Park_(35549651301).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Flickr_-_vanz.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198126).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(222198144).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(801715).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Files in Category:Cloud Gate 14
[edit]- File:Miniature Bean (28865844563)~3.jpg
- File:The Bean, Millennium Park, Chicago, Illinois (28865844563)~4.jpg
~3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama for sculpture in the US, and per Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Cloud Gate and the above. Bobamnertiopsis (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, many similar earlier listings. COM:DW. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Needs to be renamed and a new version uploaded Kyndigs (talk) 09:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Hard to evaluate this. Why does this stuff need to happen? If it needs to be renamed, why not just rename it? If a new version needs to be uploaded, why not just upload it? I don't think DR is the right venue for something like this. Happy to help, though, if I can -- just hit my talk page. -Pete F (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion given. INeverCry 21:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Iran. 84.61.139.62 09:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- Keep It's copyright holder is a legal personality (i.e. Tehran municipality) and the tower has been built in 1971 that means more than 30 years has been passed after its date of public presentation, so it definitely falls into the public domain in Iran and anyone can take a photo of the Tower and publish it under a suitable license. There is just one copyright holder here, the photographer. Americophile 12:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Accoding Freedon of panorama in Iran erected 1971 by the Shah-goverment should be free now. JuTa 18:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Iran. The previous DR reached a faulty conclusion. The copyright lasts for fifty years after the death of the creator. The fact that the owner of the work is a legal entity has no bearing on this -- the period is reduced to thirty years after creation only if the copyright is transferred and there is no evidence that anyone but the architect owns the copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
- COM:FOP#Iran says "copyright of the works which produced on order by an employer belongs to the employer for a period of thirty years from the date of production" and "In cases where the work belongs to a legal personality or rights are transferred to a legal personality, it will fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation". // Liftarn (talk)
- There is no evidence that the creator of the monument, Hossein Amanat, was an employee of the government. His WP:EN biography makes no mention of it. It is far more likely that the work was done on commission, as is true of almost all art and architecture. The second quote above refers to the ownership of the copyright, not of the work itself. There is no evidence that this copyright was transferred and such transfers are very unusual.
- In order to keep the work it must be proven beyond a significant doubt that either Hossein Amanat was an employee of the Iranian government when he designed this work or that he transferred the copyright in the work to the government. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- No. You cannot separate "produced on order" from "by an employer". In order for the clause to apply, Amant must have been an employee, not simply an independent architect. Again, there is no evidence that he was an employee of the government at any time in his career. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
- Please also check Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Category:Azadi Tower. It looks like according to Berne Convention the source country is Canada and not Iran, as Iran is not a Berne Convention member state and the architect is Canadian citizen. It is unclear how Commons rules apply in this case, but technically images of this building become free if we take Canada as a source country — NickK (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
- He is a dual citizen now (Canada and Iran), but he did not leave Iran until eight years after this structure was built, so I don't see how we can possibly stretch the source country to be Canada. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Per nom, and further arguments by Jim. INeverCry 21:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov-Military}}. Takabeg (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
falsche Formel links, falsche Beschriftungen Drdoht (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A vector version is available MartinThoma (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
