Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/08/24
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2013-05-15_16-08.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
No freedom of panorama for 2D works in Australia. Bidgee (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 06:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Berezivka Raion Flag.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 05:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: dupe McZusatz (talk) 07:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angel lennon (talk · contribs)
[edit]From Internet (see description).
Juggler2005 (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violations. JuTa 15:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Non-free photos from Google (see desciption). Ankry (talk) 10:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: LEts speedy this one as well since all hos other works are blatant copyrightviolations. Natuur12 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a duplicate of File:Cornelis Bol - Een zicht op Westminster en de Thames.jpg Richard Avery (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept, this image covers a wider area and details are different from the other one Denniss (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by True.BlueXiii (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope images, seem to be uploaded purely for defamation and are likely copyright violations taken from Facebook.
- File:Dumb bitch 2014-08-24 18-15.jpeg
- File:Puta 2014-08-24 18-14.jpeg
- File:Ladydremer Facebook bitch 2014-08-24 18-13.jpeg
- File:Facebook bitch Ladydremer 2014-08-24 18-12.jpeg
- File:Sureño Gang Member 2014-08-24 11-38.jpg
- File:Pussy and Ass 2014-08-24 18-27.jpg
Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied as pure vandalism. At the next such upload, this user will be indef blocked. Lupo 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Recording of copyrighted TV broadcast Begoon - talk 04:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 18:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
This file uploaded as test CriStyle (talk) 19:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request to a freshly uploaded, unused file. JuTa 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Advertising. Juggler2005 (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Advertisement. Out of scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not updated. Actual file: Карта боевых действий на Востоке Украины.svg. Vitez Kojo (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Not updated. Actual file: Карта боевых действий на Востоке Украины.svg. Vitez Kojo (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see why this image should be deleted. It isn't an actual file, but the title and description makes that clear. JurgenNL (talk) 15:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope (unused personal image); no copyright and license information ireas (talk) 00:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GRS73 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://disneychannel.disney.com/ KTo288 (talk) 00:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
KeepThis image only consists of simple geometric shapes,-color- and/or text. It does not meet the threshold of originality. Where's copyvio.--EEIM (talk) 01:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep U.S. works, pretty clearly text and simple shapes. simple logo.--EEIM (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete this is not a simple logo is a copyright violation. Fabiano msg 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A {{PD-textlogo}} with no further details to be considered subject of copyright protection. - Fma12 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:TOO Alan (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Appears to be taken from here: http://www.realsaltlake.com/news/2011/10/johnson-excused-canada-camp-after-ankle-sprain Ytoyoda (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Marysol2011 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Mac aponte portada.jpg
- File:Mac Aponte CD Golosinas Portada.png
- File:MAC MAGAZINE.png
- File:Mac Aponte.jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PS Alan (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from this blog post that predates the upload by 3 years: http://theoriginalwinger.com/2011-04-27-rose-city-support Ytoyoda (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Alan (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Derivative work of non-free content. The creator of the work has died in 1992. The work therefore is not in public domain.--Hahifuheho (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Derivative work of non-free content. The creator of the work has died in 1992. The work therefore is not in public domain.--Hahifuheho (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Derivative work of non-free content. The creator of the work has died in 1992. The work therefore is not in public domain.--Hahifuheho (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
I had added newer version of this pic Akक्षय 02:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I had uploaded new version of it and It has bad pixel quality Akक्षय 03:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Fastily. JuTa 21:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
some homepage material, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
some homepage material, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 04:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
some homepage material, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
some homepage material, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Poster, includes text ower the picture Motopark (talk) 04:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
some inknown person, not used Motopark (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Chen101689N187 (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
There is no FOP in Greece, the architecture and posters on display are copyright. LGA talkedits 04:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a screenshot of dialog boxes of Microsoft Excel. I think it does meet the threshold of originality; therefore, per Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products, this file should be deleted. However, the uploader thinks it is ineligible for copyright. So let's discuss if this file should be deleted or not. Chmarkine (talk) 04:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused personal image. Jespinos (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
some unknown person, see description, cropped from one poster, see ujploaders history Motopark (talk) 04:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 03:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Universo Juvenil (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private pictures, see description, Commons are not Facebook
- File:Docentes UJ 2014 5ta Generación.png
- File:Graduación 2012 UJ.png
- File:Alumnos 4ta generación UJ 2013.png
- File:5ta graduación, 5ta Generación 2014 UJ.png
Motopark (talk) 04:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work (photo of a photo) 37.5.6.92 05:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Tabercil as no source.But neither google nor tineye is able to find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. JuTa 05:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Uploader in question has uploaded a number of other images which have been deleted as copyvios. Additionally there is another image active image of theirs which is currently tagged as "No Permission" - File:Zultewaregem1314.jpg. So the user does not have a history of "clean hands". Granted Google Images couldn't locate it but Based on the claimed image source for that "No Permissions" pic, I suspect this image came from the same place: the SV Zulte Waregem team website. Tabercil (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Tabercil as no source. But neither google nor tineye is able to find an external source to oubt own work as claimed. JuTa 05:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Uploader in question has uploaded a number of other images which have been deleted as copyvios. Additionally there is another image active image of theirs which is currently tagged as "No Permission" - File:Zultewaregem1314.jpg. So the user does not have a history of "clean hands". Granted Google Images couldn't locate it but Based on the claimed image source for that "No Permissions" pic, I suspect this image came from the same place: the SV Zulte Waregem team website. Tabercil (talk) 19:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Bolhrad Raion flag.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 05:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Ivanivskyi rayon prapor.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
unused personal file 37.5.6.92 05:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Ivanivskyi rayon gerb.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:16, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dubious (unknown) person, dubious source, dubious licence 37.5.6.92 06:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Her picture is included in the Wikipedia article on her husband John Ardis Cawthon. The photo is from a 1970 college yearbook, which is automatically in the public domain, as are all school yearbooks prior to 1978. The photo should be left in place. Billy Hathorn (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment Not "all school yearbooks", but rather those published in the US with no copyright notice. Did you check to see if there was any copyright notice? -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Yes, there is no copyright notice in the Louisiana Tech yearbook for 1970. Billy Hathorn (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. I have corrected the copyright status to {{PD-US-no notice}}. Image is in use, therefore in scope. -- Infrogmation (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
unused personal file 37.5.6.92 07:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
File:Resistive Elements towards the Assimilation of the Chinese in Malaysia- A Comparative Review.pdf
[edit]some homepage material, out of project scope Motopark (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
is too small; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
is too small; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
is too small; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
is too small; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
is too small; Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erinisonline (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal files. There is only user contribution.
Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muralidharavvari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal files. The remaining files are used in userpages.
Ю. Данилевский (talk) 07:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marco 2 en (talk · contribs)
[edit]I have doubts that these files are "own work". Low-res, no EXIF. Dislike of this user to notifications of copyvios [1], [2] strengthens my doubts.
- File:Husam Badran.jpg
- File:Yusuf al-Qaradawi an Badran.jpg
- File:Sheikh Hassan with his Yousef Rabia sign.jpg
- File:Sheikh Hassan Yousef Rabia sign.jpg
- File:Fatah prisoners.jpg
- File:Main library iu.jpg
- File:Abdulkareen Lehdan building iug.jpg
- File:The mosque of the Islamic University of Gaza.jpg
- File:Muhanad altaher2.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 08:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not an excuse
This not an excuse to delete them, if i had some images deleted ..that's not means all other images should delete too. thanks . --Marco 2 en (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Are you the real author of these photos? Or did you find them on the web? For example, 1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sheikh_Hassan_with_his_Yousef_Rabia_sign.jpg and http://rotter.net/forum/scoops1/80022.shtml; 2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fatah_prisoners.jpg and https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=609014405775758&set=a.201458003198069.53504.100000016119384&type=1&relevant_count=1. --Juggler2005 (talk) 08:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, i am , i own them. --Marco 2 en (talk) 17:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file of blocked in enwiki user. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
_2013-05-15_16-08.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2013-05-15_16-08.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
_2013-05-15_16-08.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
_2013-05-15_16-08.jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal file. There is only user contribution. Ю. Данилевский (talk) 08:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Empty and unused gallery page Nicoli Maege (talk) 09:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment It wasn't empty until you blanked the page. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
DW of non-free image Anatoliy (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Scottishwildcat12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal drawing. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Reconstruction of Dusicyon cultridens 2014-08-11 14-49.jpg. Inclusion of this in en:Dusicyon cultridens bordered on vandalism.
- File:Drawing of Dusicyon cultridens 2014-08-23 04-48.jpg
- File:Drawing (not a reconstruction) of D-cultridens 2014-08-23 04-41.jpg
_of_D-cultridens_2014-08-23_04-41.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Lupo 09:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Richard Zoban (talk · contribs)
[edit]http://coasters.cz/ does not own the copyright of these beer coasters and therefore has no rigt to release them under a Creative Commons License. Even if they had the right to do it, they used a non-commercial no-derivatives license, which is not allowed at Commons. A few of them might however be simple enough for something like {{PD-simple}}.
- File:Bakalar logo.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Rakovnik 01.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Rakovnik 02.jpg
- File:Logo Gambrinus.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Gambrinus 05.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Gambrinus 04.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Gambrinus 03.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Gambrinus 01.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Gambrinus 02.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Frydlant Letohradek.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek F-M Morava.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Bruntal.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Zabak.jpg
- File:Bohumin-bhs f.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Zobak.jpg
- File:Ostravar tacek 01.jpg
- File:Ostravar tacek 03.jpg
- File:Ostravar tacek 02.jpg
- File:Strassmann tacek 01.jpg
- File:Slezan logo.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Nova Sladovna.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek Rohov.jpg
- File:Zlatovar logo.jpg
- File:Pivni tacek zlatovar.jpg
El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Most of them are copyvios, far above the TOO. I would only vote Keep on File:Ostravar tacek 01.jpg - Fma12 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture ireas (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Advertising. Juggler2005 (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Picanteria karol. --Juggler2005 (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture ireas (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
COM:PORN, doubtful source and nothing we donna have already. Yikrazuul (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
COM:PORN, nothing special, nothing new, just selfies.
Yikrazuul (talk) 10:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
picture from Samy Snoussi, no proof uploader is the author Ankry (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-old}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was highly difficult for Japanese photographers to take this picture in 1936.
- There is no proof of publication before December 31st 1956 in Japan.
Takabeg (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- It was highly difficult for Japanese photographers to take this picture in 1937.
- There is no proof of publication before December 31st 1956 in Japan.
Takabeg (talk) 11:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no proof of {{PD-USGov}}. Takabeg (talk) 11:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio of http://www.thelostogle.com/2012/10/09/ellen-and-oklahoma-an-interview-with-rob-fee/. G S Palmer (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Modern painting, made after a photograph. Ghirlandajo (talk) 13:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not PD, not own work. Tekstman (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Own work is not credible. Tekstman (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
A personal creation by CGI, non- notable, non educational, orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Ukraine. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thuong Nguyen Thi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras, could be found on other web sites.
- File:Thanh Bùi-Hồ Ngọc Hà trong "Lặng thầm một tình yêu".jpg
- File:Đường Về Xa Xôi.jpeg
- File:Thanh Bui Artist.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Test purposes! Der Seraph [J.S.] ♂ JohannesSch. (DISCU/EDITS/MAIL) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non-notable group, unremarkable and orphaned image Richard Avery (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Copyright 2012 according to website on source line. Mjrmtg (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- From The Uploader
As the original uploader of this file, I too believe that it should be removed. I went back to the website where I pulled the image and it is a website that I have used often over the past couple of years. I have never come across an image that was copyrighted and not openly shareable, but this is the exception to that. I will be more careful next time to double check and never make assumptions. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
I have also used this image on the Wikipedia page for Irwinville, Georgia, but I will remove and replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmitchellichs (talk • contribs)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Revent as no license. Well there is a CC license, but this is very unlikely own work of the uploader as claimed. JuTa 15:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, I meant "no valid license". Sorry if I tagged it wrong. There is some explanation by me on the file's talk page. Revent (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Also found here: http://archivodeautos.blogspot.com/2012/11/sumario-de-noviembre-de-2012.html. Proof should go through COM:OTRS. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Honza chodec as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: product photo Ankry (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Chmarkine as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This is a screenshot of Notepad, a software produced by Microsoft. It is copyrighted by Microsoft. Per Commons:Screenshots#Microsoft_products, this file should be deleted. I see nothing copyrightable here. Ankry (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- But a screenshot of Windows Notepad on English Wikipedia is under fair use. Chmarkine (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 03:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Churches in Kiliya Raion
[edit]Small resolutions, some photos found here
- File:Иоано-Богословский храм.jpg
- File:Свято-Архангело-Михайлівський храм (Мирне, Кілійського району).png
- File:Свято-Архангело-Михайлівський храм.png
- File:Свято-Георгієвський храм.png
- File:Свято-Димитрівський храм села Фурманівка.png
- File:Свято-Димитрівський храм.png
- File:Свято-Троїцький храм.png
- File:Старовірський храм Преподобної Параскеви.png
- File:Храм Покрова Пресвятої Богородиці.png
- File:Храм Преподобної Параскеви.png
- File:Свято - Миколаївський храм (Кілія).png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Anatoliy (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom Alan (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyvio of http://www.thueringer-staedte.de/typo3temp/pics/f1422242f8.jpg (http://www.thueringer-staedte.de/index.php?id=19 => no public domain); user seems to have uploaded images without proper licences in the past. Tim Landscheidt (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
ja a um arquivo desse tipo Cassiano soares (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Previously published on the band's website [3]. Evidence of ownership/permission needed. January (talk) 19:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. All of this editor's uploads are proving problematic. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 37.230.243.39 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope INeverCry 19:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete It does indeed seem to be out of scope, but is not in my opinion a speedy deletion candidate. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the nominator really the creator of this image? Not likely. It's much more likely to be acopyvio. Nyttend (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Images by Veoret
[edit]Small resolutions, some photos found here
- File:Каплиця на честь Різдва Христового.png
- File:Каплиця на честь Успіня Божої Матері.png
- File:Свято-Миколаївський храм (Вилкове).jpg
- File:Свято-Миколаївський храм Вилкове.png
- File:Старовірський храм Покрова Пресвятої Богородиці.png
- File:Старовірський храм Різдва Пресвятої Богородиці.png
- File:Храм Успіня Божої Матері (Кілія).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Anatoliy (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This is a close up view of a modern bridge in South Korea but this country has no FOP for modern architecture unless the photo was taken from a distance or there was many other bridges in the photo...rather than focusing on one bridge. It looks like Wikicommons cannot keep this image then. Leoboudv (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Low resolution and no EXIF are usually a good indication of copyvio. Besides, there is a strange border around the image, which suggests that it has been copied from somewhere. I'm not sure that it is in scope either. Stefan4 (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm just not seeing that EXIF and low resolution are indications of anything of the sort. Low resolution may mean that the photographer only intended to release a low-resolution version as free and intended to keep other rights on a higher resolution version. A border simply means the file was edited, as indicated by the EXIF data that's there. And as far as EXIF goes, my own photos that I've uploaded here only have EXIF because I decided I was too lazy to run them through the EXIF stripper app, since I'd misplaced it. The only thing I found doing a Google search by image was this file. I suggest we keep this file, barring some actual evidence that it's been copied from somewhere else. As far as scope, he's a minor politician, and while an article on him may not be encyclopedic enough for Wikipedia, I can't see that an image of him isn't educational. XeroxKleenex (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't see how there's any educational value in it if there's no context in which it can actually be used for anything, no article it could be added to in which it would contribute anything of value. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
com:LL, taken from flickrwashaccount of user:Xraykan. Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- speedy delete per flickrwash. --Leoboudv (talk) 22:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
not in use and not notable project and people so no educational value Ezarateesteban 20:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
obvious copyvio from copyrighted newspaper article DHN (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
obvious copyvio upload from banned user DHN (talk) 20:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
not clear subject, it appears to be promotional content Ezarateesteban 20:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC) Adding:
- File:Saúl Costa Rica.jpg collague without sources.
- File:Cafe saul.jpg
- File:Saúl E. Méndez.jpg
- File:Saúl E Mendez.jpg
Deleted: INeverCry 03:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
out of scope, only text document Ezarateesteban 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Error en la elección de la foto. Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 21:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
copyright issues: see http://blogs.goucher.edu/digitallibrary/about/, says "Digital materials provided by the digital initiatives are generally open to the public, but are intended for educational and research purposes only. " Ezarateesteban 21:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama does not apply in Spain to the inside of a museum. On the other hand, works do not enter into the public domain until 80 years pma Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Obvious derivative work from w:en:File:Heroes_del_Silencio.jpg. No simple geometrical shapes at all Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Not a permanent exhibition and therefore FOP does not apply. Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Obviously, it's beyond the threshold of originality. No simple shapes at all. Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
No permanent exhibition. Therefore, FOP does not apply Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This does not seem to fit into any of the categories in the copyright template. Stefan4 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- This badge is based on "GA 244-2000: The technical standard of The People's Police emblem" & People's Police Badge Usage Regulations (MPS Order No. 48), which was published as order by The Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China.
- So, it belongs to "(1) orders of state organs" in the copyright template. --Myheimu (talk) 09:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Same as national emblem. Fry1989 eh? 17:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep A Government agency of China, fit into point 1). - Fma12 (talk) 18:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per above. INeverCry 03:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Esta licencia no se aplica a los contenidos (textos, gráficos, informaciones, imágenes...) publicados por 20 minutos procedentes de terceros que vayan firmados o sean atribuidos a agencias de información (Reuters, EFE, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP...), a fotógrafos (Jorge París...) o a cualquier otra empresa diferente de 20 minutos (Taznia Media S.L...) Estas excepciones tendrán sus propias condiciones de copia y distribución que nada tienen que ver con las de 20 minutos y, por tanto, antes de realizar cualquier acción con dichos contenidos se debe comprobar sus condiciones de uso.
This license [CC-BY-SA] does not apply to the contents (texts, graphics, informations of any kind, images...) published by 20minutos but coming from third parties when they are signed or when they are attributed to news agencies (Reuters, EFE, Europa Press, Korpa, Atlas, France Press, AP...), photographs (Jorge París...) or to any company other than 20 minutos (Taznia Media S.L...). These exceptions will have their own copy and distribution conditions, which will be different from the ones of 20minutos.es and, therefore, before any action on said contents, usage conditions must be checked.
The image is signed and therefore, the CC-BY-SA license does not apply Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 21:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
dubious free media El Funcionario (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo - out of project scope. XXN, 18:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Banknotes of China
[edit]Various banknotes with questionable copyright tags:
- Some are claimed to be own work by the uploader. It is unlikely that the uploaders created Chinese money. Only the central bank does this.
- Some are tagged with {{PD-PRC-exempt}}, but these images don't seem to fit into any of the categories listed in that template.
- File:20 Yuan 01.png
- File:20 Yuan 02.png
- File:20 Yuan 03.png
- File:3 Yuan Chinese Currency.jpg
- File:5 yuan 2005.jpg
- File:China Jiao.jpg
- File:China Wu Jiao.jpg
- File:Mikroschrift 100CNY.jpg
- File:Renminbi yuan.JPG
- File:RMB4-100yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-100yuan-B.jpg
- File:RMB4-10yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-10yuan-B.jpg
- File:RMB4-1jiao-A.gif
- File:RMB4-1jiao-B.gif
- File:RMB4-1yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-1yuan-B.jpg
- File:RMB4-2jiao-A.gif
- File:RMB4-2jiao-B.gif
- File:RMB4-2yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-2yuan-B.jpg
- File:RMB4-50yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-50yuan-B.jpg
- File:RMB4-5jiao-A.gif
- File:RMB4-5jiao-B.gif
- File:RMB4-5yuan-A.jpg
- File:RMB4-5yuan-B.jpg
- File:法轮功人民币.jpg
Stefan4 (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This comes from flickrphoto:3996516940, where it is listed as CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not accepted on Commons. The licence may have been a different one when the file was uploaded to Turkish Wikipedia in 2013, but Flickr has never supported CC-BY-SA 2.5 as Flickr always uses version 2.0 of the CC licences. It is therefore unlikely that the file ever has been licensed under the indicated licence on Flickr. Whether it has at some other point been licensed under a free licence or not is unclear. Finally, the file information page on Flickr says "Fotoğraf: Julien Aksoy" whereas the Flickr account holder claims to be called "M. Serdar Kuzuloğlu", so it is unclear if the Flickr user was allowed to license the image in the first place. Stefan4 (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete nominators reasoning sounds quite plausible. Ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: BY-NC-SA Alan (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Jonathan Borofsky is born in 1942. No freedom of panorama in France. 90.61.171.64 23:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France for architectural works. The attached photo shows the bridge as the main subject. The drawing by itself is OK. 67.87.46.39 20:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
This map does not illustrate gerrymandering, nor does it link to any article in Wikipedia or elsewhere, whereby the suggestion of gerrymandering might be explained. I nominate this file for removal or re-titling. 24.88.67.192 21:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Dieses Foto muß gelöscht werden, da es sich hier um eine Eindeutige Verletzung der Persönlichkeitsrechte des Eigentümers und Verletzung des Urheberrechtes handelt, da die Aufnahme verbotener Weise von nichtöffentlichem Grund und Boden erfolgte. 93.207.218.140 16:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo IP 93.207.218.140, es ist jetzt zwar schon etwas her, dass ich dort war aber wenn ich das richtig sehe, verläuft östlich des Grundstücks mit dem Haus ein Weg nach Süden welcher weitere Gebäude erschließt. Vom Rand dieses Weges wurde das Foto gemacht. Ich betrete private Grundstücke grundsätzlich nicht ohne Erlaubnis der Besitzer und ich schließe aus, dass ich einen Zaun, Hinweisschild oder ähnliches passiert habe. Ich bin sehr sicher, dass mein Aufnahmestandort frei zugänglich war. In meinen Augen greift in diesem Fall § 59 UrhG und Urheberrecht und Persönlichkeitsrecht sind nicht verletzt.
- Unabhängig hiervon - wenn Sie Eigentümer des fotografierten Hauses sind, danke ich Ihnen, dass Sie sich so gut um dieses historische Gebäude kümmern. Ich weiss, dass dies viel Geld kostet und nicht selbstverständlich ist. Ich bin froh, dass dieses Stück Geschichte in guten Händen ist. Viele Grüße --An-d (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: What about the Freedom of panorama in Germany for buildings located in private properties? --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, there is Freedom of panorama in Germany (§59 UrhG). Me and my Camera was on public ground.
- Hier ein Foto des Weges nach Süden. Dort ist keine Hofeinfahrt oder ähnliches. Ich habe für das Foto keinen Zaun passiert. --An-d (talk) 18:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hallo An-d, Das Foto zeigt den Weg nach Nord-Westen, und nicht nach Süden wie Sie schreiben. Das ist aber für den eigentlichen Sachverhalt auch egal. Leider tut das mit dem fehlenden Tor hier auch überhaupt nichts zu Sache und Ihr Argument läuft ins leere. Denn nicht jeder Weg, der auch ohne ein Tor zu öffnen von der Straße zugänglich ist, ist auch ein "öffentlicher Weg". Auf Ihrem Weg zum Standort von dem das Foto aufgenommen wurde, überquerten Sie mitten in der Auffahrt einen Genzstein, der sich mitten in der Auffahrt genau an der Stelle befindet, wo die asphaltierte öffentliche Straße an den privaten Grund grenzt und der für jeden sichtbar ist. Daher waren Sie nachweislich "not on public ground". Ich fordere daher nochmals nachdrücklich und letztmalig einvernehmlich das in Rede stehende Bild wegen offensichtlicher und nachweislicher Verletzung der Persönlichkeite und Urheberrechte schnellstmöglich, aber bis spätestens 31.08.20:00 Uhr zu löschen. Weiterhn fordere ich Sie auf, der besseren Transparenz und Klärung wegen, mir ihre ladungadungsfähige postalische Anschrift per E-Mail an owner1@remax-rostock mitzuteilen und sich nicht hinter einer Psseudoanonymität des Internets zu verstecken. Wenn Sie mit Ihrer Auffassung und Argumenten recht haben, haben Sie schließlich nichts zu befürchten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.207.219.56 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hallo "owner1" (wer versteckt sich hier den bitte vor wem?) Ich kann auch auch nicht einschätzen, was ein Immobilienmakler mit diesem denkmalgeschützten Gebäude im Dorf Reddelich zu tun hat, für die Klärung hier ist es aber auch egal. Für mich war das in keiner Weise als Privatgelände erkennbar. Kennen Sie den Kommentar zur UrhG von Dreier / Schulze?: Öffentlich ist der Aufnahmeort, wenn er jedermann frei zugänglich ist und im Gemeingebrauch steht; dies gilt auch für privates Gelände, wie Privatwege und Parks, wenn sie für jedermann frei zugänglich sind. Ich denke das gilt im besonderen Maße, wenn der Weg nichteinmal als Privatweg erkennbar ist. dieses Bild wurde von hier:
mit Blickrichtung Südwest aufgenommen und zeigt den Weg nach Süden. Zum weiteren Ablauf folgendes. Ich kann das Foto nicht löschen. Dies kann nur ein Administrator von Commons, wenn dieser der Meinung ist, dass dieses Bild nicht unter die Panoramafreiheit nach dem UrhG fällt. Meine Ansicht dazu habe ich dargelegt, Sie Ihre auch. Unabhängig von diesen Fragen war meine Intention die Dokumentation eines denkmalgeschützen Gebäudes. Wenn Sie diese Gebäude kaufen oder verkaufen wollen (Makler?) sollte Ihnen klar sein, dass Sinn der Denkmalpflege ist, Kulturdenkmäler zu pflegen, zu schützen und wissenschaftlich zu erforschen sowie deren Wahrnehmung als geschichtliche Quelle in der Öffentlichkeit zu fördern. (§ 1 DSchG M-V). Es ist praktisch ausgeschlossen, dass Sie dauerhaft verhindern, dass Fotos von diesem Baudenkmal veröffentlicht werden. Ich möchte Ihnen zusätzlich auch noch diesen Artikel ans Herz legen. Freundliche Grüße --An-d (talk) 19:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Camera location 
View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap 
Hallo An-d. Es geht hier auschließlich darum, dass Sie mit Ihre Aufnahme, die ohne Erlaubnis des Eigentümers von privatem Grund und Boden aus gemacht worden ist, die berechtigten schutzwürdigen Interessen und die Privatsphäre des Eigentümers erheblich verletzen. Das Sie ein derart aufgenommenes Bild, das den von öffentlichem Grund nicht einsehbaren, rückwärtige Teil eines Privatgrundstückes, ohne Genehmigung des Privateigentümes, mit genauer Anschrift und genauer Geocodierung, im Internet veröffentlichen, verletzt die Privatsphäre des Eigentümers erheblich und ist nicht gestattet. Damit verstoßen Sie grob gegen geltendes Recht und Gesetz, und dass wissen Sie auch, sonst würden Sie zum Beispiel Ihre ladungsfähige Anschrift mitteilen. Es liegt mir fern langweilige und langwierige Rechtsaufsätze zu lesen und juristische Spitzfindigkeiten zu diskutieren. Dazu ist das Leben viel zu kurz und zu schön.
Sie argumentieren mit Ihren Ausschweifungen zum kaufen, oder nicht kaufen und Immobilienmakler usw. leider weit an der Sache vorbei. Es geht einzig und allein daraum, dass es nicht sein kann, dass fremde Leute, ohne zu Fragen und ohne Erlaubnis des Eigentümers, private Grundstücke betreten, um Fotos zu schießen, von nicht der allgemeinen Öffentlichkeit ohne weiteres zugänglichen privaten und nicht öffentlich einsehbaren Bereichen und diese dann im Internet mit Anschrift und genauer Geocodierung auch noch veröffentlichen! Das das in Rede stehende Haus jederzeit VON DER STRAßE AUS FOTOGRAFIERT werden kann, und solche Bilder auch veröffentlicht werden, dagegen ist überhaupt nichts einzuwenden! Aber so wie es in diesem Fall von Ihnen praktiziert wurde, ist und bleibt es nun mal falsch und geht es nun mal gar nicht! Ihr Verhalten verstößt im übrigen nicht nur gegen Recht und Gesetz, sondern auch gegen gutes Benehmen und Etikette! Das beim Arbeiten Fehler passieren, ist völlig normal. Aber wer Fehler macht, macht sie auch wieder gut und entschuldigt sich dafür! - Ich erwarte von Ihnen daher gegenüber dem Administrator eine eineindeutige Stellungnahme und eine Berichtigung Ihres Fehlers und kein gleichgültiges "dann sollen doch mal die anderen machen, wenn die meinen"!
Im Übrigen können Sie mir bei Gelegenheit gerne mehr über Denkmalschutz erzählen wenn Sie wollen. Ich glaube jedoch, dass ich nach mehreren selbst sanierten denkmalgeschützten Häusern wahrscheinlich eher noch zu Ihrer diesbezüglichen Weiterbildung beitragen kann.
Zu Ihrer nebensächlichen Frage wer sich wohl versteckt: Sie verstecken sich (leider immer noch) hinter An-d. Das wird wohl auch einen Grund haben! Ich habe Ihnen Kontakinformationen gegeben, die Sie ja auch nutzten, um herauszufinden, wer hinter der veröffentlichten E-Mail-Adresse steckt. Wenn Sie es wirklich wollten, könnten Sie diese auch nutzen, um den in Rede stehenden Sachverhalt in einem persönlichen Gespräch oder Telefonat, mit offenem Visier und unter Nennung von Roß und Reiter, so wie es sich gehört, zu klären. Sie haben dazu aber bisher keinen Mut gefunden. Villeicht kennen Sie das: "Man spricht sich zusammen und schreibt sich auseinander!"
Mit freundlichen Grüßen.
- Hallo Anonymus, ich denke unsere Argumente haben wir ausgetauscht, wir sehen uns jeweils im Recht und ich vermute, dass von uns beiden nichts substantielles mehr dazu kommen wird. Ich biete als Kompromiss an sobald die Vegetation etwas lichter ist und ich wieder in Reddelich bin, ein zusätzliches Foto von dem Haus von Norden zu machen und in den Artikel mit den Reddelicher Baudenkmälern einzubinden. Ob es sinnvoll ist, dass Sie weiter das Foto aus dem Artikel entfernen, möchte ich bezweifeln. In wenigen Tagen beginnt Wiki love Monuments 2014 und europaweit werden Fotografen ausschwärmen um Fotos von Baudenkmälern zu machen, insbesondere von nicht in ausreichendem Ausmaß dokumentierten Gebäuden. Sie sorgen also mit Ihren Edits für weitere Aufmerksamkeit in Form von Fotografen bei Ihrem Klienten. Im übrigen sind die Abrufzahlen der Seite Liste der Baudenkmale in Reddelich in den letzten Tagen deutlich gestiegen, was vermutlich nicht in Ihrem Interesse liegen dürfte, aber durch diesen Löschantrag verursacht wurde. Freundliche Grüße --An-d (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Hallo An-d. Im Recht "sehen" und im Recht "sein" sind nun mal nicht ein und dasselbe. Bei den von Ihnen oben zu Beweiszwecken angeführten Kamerapositionen ist deutlich zu erkennen, dass sich diese eben nicht auf der öffentlichen Straße, sondern deutlich und weit abseits dieser auf nichtöffentlichem Grund befinden. Übrigens zur Info, der Eigentümer des anderen fotografierten Grundstückes ist Rechtsanwalt mit eigener Kanzlei in Rostock. Natürlich unterhält man sich im Dorf in der realen Welt auch. Vielleicht erklären sich so ja dummer Weise auch die erhöhten Zugriffszahlen.
Auf mein Angebot die Sache einvernehmlich zur Klärung zu bringen gingen Sie leider bisher aus unerklärlichen und auch von Ihnen bisher nicht dargelegten Gründen nicht weiter ein. Ich kann es nur Refrainartig wiederholen: Teilen Sie mir bitte die ladungsfähigen Kontaktdaten mit, um ihnen die Möglichkeit zu geben in die amtliche Flurkarte Einsicht zu erhalten, damit Sie sich selbst und im weiteren auch die Wiki Administratoren schwarz auf weiß davon überzeugen können, dass Sie im Unrecht sind. Oder haben Sie die Persönlichkeit und Größe mir zu glauben und beantragen Sie alternativ die Löschung Ihres eigenen Bildes unabhängig von der Prüfung. Gerne stelle ich den Wiki Administratoren, wenn es gewünscht wird, ein anderes von öffentlichem Grund gemachtes Bild zur Verfügung. Was ist daran so unmöglich oder schwer?
Mehr, als schwarz auf weiß eineindeutigen Beweis anbieten, kann ich nun mal nicht. Sie müssten sich schon die Mühe machen und die Gelegenheit nehmen, diese Beweise auch (nichtöffentlich) zu prüfen und zu würdigen. Daran fehlt es bis jetzt leider immer noch. Mit Ihrer Verweigerungshaltung konterkarieren Sie nicht nur Ihre eigene Arbeit, sondern leider auch die der Wiki-Community. Denn dadurch Entsteht in der Öffentlichkeit ein fragwürdiger Eindruck ihrer Arbeitsweise. Im Übrigen sind es, wie Sie selbst wissen, von Bad Doberan aus nur ca. 5 km nach Reddelich zu fahren. Wenn Sie also unbedingt anonym bleiben möchten, könnten Sie sich selbst auch vor Ort persönlich durch Inaugenscheinnahme davon überzeugen, dass mitten in der Auffahrt sichtbar der Grenzstein (Erdrohr mit Plastehaube) liegt, der von Ihnen beim Fotografieren nicht beachtet wurde, vielleicht weil Sie ihn leicht übersehen haben, wodurch es in Folge zu den Rechtsverletzungen kam. Aber auch an diesen Bemühungen fehlt es leider bisher.
Liebe/r An-d, Ihre in der Sache uneinsichtige und unbegründete "Verweigerungshaltung" zur Korrektur eines Fehlers, Ihr scheinbar gleichgültiger Umgang mit dem Gesetz und der Verletzung der Rechte anderer und Ihr anonymisiertes Versteckpiel sprechen für sich selbst! Dieses Verhalten bei der Bearbeitung dieses "Vorganges" färbt darüber hinaus leider auch auf den Eindruck von der Arbeitsweise der Wiki Community in der Öffentlichkeit ab. Wenn Ihnen tatsächlich an der Klärung der Sache gelegen ist und Sie wirklich "Eigentümern dankbar sind, die sich so gut um historische Gebäude kümmern" wie Sie selbst am 24.08. schreiben, respektierten Sie auch deren Rechte und Privatsphäre! Hören Sie doch auf über Zugriffszahlen, Kulturhistorie, Streisandeffekte und Klienten zu orakeln, sondern untermauern Sie stattdessen durch einfaches Handeln und Kontaktherstellung die Ernsthaftigkeit Ihrer eigenen Worte! Kommen Sie meiner o.g. Bitte und Aufforderung nach, dafür zu sorgen das Bild zu löschen, oder wenn Sie sich ungerecht behandelt fühlen, mit mir zur Klärung der Sache auf einfachem Wege Kontakt aufzunehmen, oder mitzuteilen wie sie zu erreichen sind! Die einfachen Möglichkeiten dazu, sind Ihnen von meiner Seite aus bereits lange gegeben. Wenn Sie dies nicht tun, entsteht/bleibt in der Öffentlichkeit der Eindruck, dass ein uneinsichtiger und sich in der Anonymität zu verstecken versuchender Wiki-Redakteur/in nicht Willens ist, einen möglicherweise versehentlich begangenen Fehler zu berichtigen. Die Bewertung dieses Eindruckes wird die Öffentlichkeit für sich selbst vornehmen. Die richtigen Schlussfolgerungen daraus mag jeder für sich selbst ziehen. Sich selbst als Wiki Redakteur, aber leider auch der Wiki Community, erweisen Sie damit jedoch keinen guten Dienst. Mit freundlichen Grüßen.
Deleted: Photo seems to be taken from private ground Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Green Giant as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derived from this image which appears to be widely available on the internet and highly unlikely to be uploaders own work. However, this might be PD-old. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Initially I thought it might be old because the person depicted lived several centuries ago, but I couldn't find anything about the date or authorship, so it was difficult to justify PD-old. Additionally this image appears to have been cropped from a larger image and claimed as own work as can be seen from the internet image. On further investigation I've found that we have a full size version at File:Nizami_Rug_Crop.jpg which appears to be a photo of a rug but the copyright status is unclear, because it states "Photo © 2004 David Chamberlain" although there is no date or author in the summary but it is licensed as CC-BY-SA-2.0. The situation is further muddied by its use in the en:Nizami Ganjavi article which suggests it is a photo of a rug from 1939. I will support redirecting this to the larger image it was derived from if the date and authorship can be confirmed. Green Giant (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Completely aside from the issues above, I don;t think this is useful -- it's a torso cropped from a full portrait. not in use anywhere. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Doubt on the license (picture copyrighted in a document in the public domain). See this discussion (french). XoLm56 (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I've contacted the BnF to know if the license is right or not. Could we wait until the answer? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep unteil further notice. As for me, nothing more to say than in the french-speaking VP.--Jebulon (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: It's been two weeks -- this is a 1971 work and it is very unlikely that it is actually PD. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
The given source doesn't say anything about their files being released under the Free Art License. At the description pages for the three icons ([4], [5], [6]), there's only a not that The license of this file is unknown. They don't appear to simple enough to be in the public domain and since they are used in the context of w:Starcraft 2 there may also be Copyright issues with Blizzard Entertainment involved the makers of that Wiki didn't think about.
![[4]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/File:Picon_small.png){kind=link}
![[5]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/File:Ticon_small.png){kind=link}
![[6]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/File:Zicon_small.png){kind=link}
El Grafo (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Those files are just simple icons done in order to show an information about a player (and no other use as the resolution is very (very, very) small), and could have been created by anyone (I doubt it was created by Blizzard, who uses other icons - see here). Moreover, they are quite important to improve the readability of an article (see fr:Classement WCS). I indicated the same license as this: , & . Liquipedia is also a well-known website about StarCraft 2 statistics, and it seems have no issue with Blizzard as they use those icons today. -Arkelis (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC) (Français : Ces images sont de simples icônes servant à indiquer une information sur un joueur (seule vocation, car la résolution est très petite) et peuvent avoir été créées n'importe qui (vu la simplicité de l'image !). Blizzard utilise d'autres icones - cf. ici. De plus, elles sont importantes pour faciliter la lisibilité d'un article - cf. fr:Classement WCS. J'ai indiqué la même license que cette icône : , et .)
- Ok, let me rephrase that: There is no indication that these files are available under the Free Art License - that's just plainly wrong. If they are simple enough to be free (below the Threshold of originality, which is not for me to decide), they must be tagged with an appropriate Public Domain template such as {{PD-simple}}. I'm adding the three other files to this discussion, so we have a joint conclusion for all of them:
- --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I sent an e-mail to Blizzard's support in order to know which license can be set / or if the files have to be deleted (if they send an answer ^^). Sincerely, Arkelis (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- I found the following license on another image on Liquipedia [7] :
- I sent an e-mail to Blizzard's support in order to know which license can be set / or if the files have to be deleted (if they send an answer ^^). Sincerely, Arkelis (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
- --El Grafo (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
![[7]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/File:WCS-logo-small.png){kind=link}
This file is owned by Blizzard, and is used acceptably under their guidelines.
©Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. All rights reserved. Wings of Liberty, Heart of the Swarm, StarCraft, Brood War, Battle.net, and Blizzard Entertainment are trademarks or registered trademarks of Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.
- Their guidelines (english version here) say: noncommercial and personal use only. So while it may be ok for Liquipedia to use them, it is not OK to upload files like that to Commons, because we require files to be useable for commercial purposes (see Commons:Licensing). Unless, of course, the images are too simple to be copyrightable. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- I guess you are right, I should probably upload it on wiki and not on commons (Blizzard did not anwser, I guess they'll never give an anwser xD). I don't know if those images are simple enough, but they are "quite" small without details, but, it's true, a specific shape... Sincerely, Arkelis (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Their guidelines (english version here) say: noncommercial and personal use only. So while it may be ok for Liquipedia to use them, it is not OK to upload files like that to Commons, because we require files to be useable for commercial purposes (see Commons:Licensing). Unless, of course, the images are too simple to be copyrightable. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder. It is a copyright violation to claim that content under the MIT licence is available under the CC-Zero licence or that you are the copyright holder yourself.
Missing evidence that Kabosu112 has licensed the photograph posted here of which the images is a derivative work.
Stefan4 (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I'm not going to defend keeping or deleting these files, however I created and designed those files purely based on Dogecoin logomark, in fact they are the same, I just made it available in svg format, the sole difference is that mine version is a vector while the original is a rasterized image. Dogecoin is a crypto currency which is developed under MIT license and its logo was released by its co-founder under CC license, it is not my responsibility to judge the fact that they actually ripped someone's photo off, but I think that their position as a open foundantion that they wouldn't violate copyrights either, so the nominator has no evidence or correct claim to assume that it is a copyright violation. I'm not responsible for the fact that the currency is actually based on a internet meme, and I didn't want to reproduce this meme, I uploaded it convinced that someone would claim it as a copyright violation under the circumstances of derivative work. Eduemoni (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that Dogecoin is derived from w:Doge (meme) which is all about using an image from this blog post, and that image was used in the logo. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- That is not our concern, anyway do you really think that a institution would violate a simple copyright by riping off a meme? I'm not responsible if the currency's logo is derivative, what is the problem in here? If it was a violation like u said, we couldn't even use the fair-use image per se, which in case we did. Eduemoni (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is our concern. Let's say someone uploads this image to Flickr as their own work under a Creative Commons license (yes, people do that) and it is then copied to Commons. As soon as someone finds out that the image is not actually the Flickr user's own work it's instantly gonna be deleted per COM:License laundering. The case is less clear here of course. From an established institution, I would indeed expect that they would have sorted out copyright issues before using someone else's work. But given that this whole Dogecoin thing basically started out as a joke based on another joke plus the fact that people that are into internet memes generally don't give a s**t about copyright makes me sceptical. It would probably be best to have the makers of Dogecoin send an e-mail to OTRS in which they state that they have sorted out any copyright issues with the creator of the original picture and that they have indeed the right to release their logo under the MIT/CC license. As long as there is reasonabe doubt about this, we can't keep it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Fair use is not allowed at Commons anyway.
- I didn't cite fair use on commons, I talked about using it on Wikipedia. Eduemoni (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- It is our concern. Let's say someone uploads this image to Flickr as their own work under a Creative Commons license (yes, people do that) and it is then copied to Commons. As soon as someone finds out that the image is not actually the Flickr user's own work it's instantly gonna be deleted per COM:License laundering. The case is less clear here of course. From an established institution, I would indeed expect that they would have sorted out copyright issues before using someone else's work. But given that this whole Dogecoin thing basically started out as a joke based on another joke plus the fact that people that are into internet memes generally don't give a s**t about copyright makes me sceptical. It would probably be best to have the makers of Dogecoin send an e-mail to OTRS in which they state that they have sorted out any copyright issues with the creator of the original picture and that they have indeed the right to release their logo under the MIT/CC license. As long as there is reasonabe doubt about this, we can't keep it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC) PS: Fair use is not allowed at Commons anyway.
- That is not our concern, anyway do you really think that a institution would violate a simple copyright by riping off a meme? I'm not responsible if the currency's logo is derivative, what is the problem in here? If it was a violation like u said, we couldn't even use the fair-use image per se, which in case we did. Eduemoni (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The problem is that Dogecoin is derived from w:Doge (meme) which is all about using an image from this blog post, and that image was used in the logo. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Without knowing the copyright status of the photo of the face of the dog in that meme, I can not comment on whether the dogecoin logo is ok or not. Fry1989 eh? 02:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- The author, Atsuko Sato, is quoted at “Wow this is doge”, saying “I write on my blog almost every day and upload many pictures on the internet [….] It‘s quite natural that anyone can see the photos and use them, but I didn’t think about it until I saw the meme.” That certainly doesn’t prove anything—she doesn’t say anything like “They stole my photo!”—but if it hadn‘t occurred to her that others might want to reuse the image, it doesn’t seem plausible that she could form the intent to license it, so to speak. I don’t read Japanese: is there a terms-of-use page somewhere on that blog? If there’s something there that releases all the site’s content, derivative images could be kept on that basis, but otherwise we have to presume that the original rights are protected. Anyone care to argue that Kabosu is the real author, having compelled Sato to press the shutter button by being so photogenic?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete unclear copyright status / COM:NETCOPYRIGHT. LGA talkedits 06:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Personally I don't give a toss, but it seems to me that if there is this sort of argument/discussion then the copyright issue isn't clear cut. If it's not clear cut then it shouldn't be on Commons. Simple. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Ok I'm going to personally sum up my vote, like I cited above, a project in high profile such as a crypto currency, which has a notoriety, wouldn't release its own logo under Creative Commons license, if it hadn't addressed the original author behind the concept of this logo, but to second that, this image also does not attain sufficient originality to attract copyright protection. If it had we would know that Kabosu has entered a legal action against it. There is also another point, an w:open source usually uses material which follows open source guidelines, or create things from scrap, they don't rip off things, if this logo is used by them, even on imprints, there is no argument that would make it a copyright violation. Unless proven false, which you guys didn't prove. This is my point, I'm not responsible to prove that Dogecoin founders OTRS Doge meme photo author, because I'm not able to prove that they did, but the opposite is also true, correlation does not imply causation, I have a direct prove that they licensed the file, which is required and compatible with Wikimedia. Eduemoni (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: There are questions here. The coin is clearly derivative of the photograph and is clearly above the ToO. User:Eduemoni says
- "it is not my responsibility to judge the fact that they actually ripped someone's photo off",
but in fact it is his responsibility -- the uploader must prove beyond a significant doubt that the image is correctly licensed. That has not happened here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The file has inadequate source information.
- The uploader specifies the image shall be used only for educational purposes, not for profit. Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: As is explained in the description, the file comes from the Universidad de Chile (a public university dependient of the State of Chile) photo-archive, and has been be taken during his military actions as the Commander-in-chief of the Chilean Army (public person in public place) at the moment. Therefore, here apply the {{PD-Chile}}. I agree than the file needs proper sources, but the file, as part of the State of Chile, is already in the Public domain. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Invalid source and license information, no evidence of permission. Krd 07:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Unknown person in a poorly constructed image with no contextual information Richard Avery (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, this is a picture of Alain Monney in background. It is an illustration of his work.
Kept: Alain Monney has an article on fr.wiki, so this is likely in scope. INeverCry 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
not in use, no notable people and not educational purpose on picture Ezarateesteban 20:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- I created a category. Stuchka (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as before. --Krd 14:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Eagle Creek Overlook Shelter, Columbia Gorge,Oregon-Washington Border, Bonneville, Multnomah County, OR HABS ORE,26-BOND.V,1- (sheet 9 of 9).png. The file to be kept is newer, but has a superior description. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Eagle Creek Overlook Shelter, Columbia Gorge,Oregon-Washington Border, Bonneville, Multnomah County, OR HABS ORE,26-BOND.V,1- (sheet 7 of 9).png. The file to be kept is newer, but has a superior description. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Eagle Creek Overlook Shelter, Columbia Gorge,Oregon-Washington Border, Bonneville, Multnomah County, OR HABS ORE,26-BOND.V,1- (sheet 5 of 9).png. The file to be kept is newer, but has a superior description. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Eagle Creek Overlook Shelter, Columbia Gorge,Oregon-Washington Border, Bonneville, Multnomah County, OR HABS ORE,26-BOND.V,1- (sheet 3 of 9).png. The file to be kept is newer, but has a superior description. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Eagle Creek Overlook Shelter, Columbia Gorge,Oregon-Washington Border, Bonneville, Multnomah County, OR HABS ORE,26-BOND.V,1- (sheet 1 of 9).png. The file to be kept is newer, but has a superior description. — Ipoellet (talk) f.k.a. Werewombat 21:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
il existe un modèle plus complet et plus récent : File:Supranational European Bodies-fr.svg Thomas500 (talk) 23:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
