Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/08/26
 |
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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio Medishh (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. JuTa 19:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyvio Medishh (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. JuTa 18:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Open access is not a free license. Juggler2005 (talk) 08:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. JuTa 18:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Minis as Red Bull campaign car
[edit]The depicted vehicle or vehicles incorporate artistic elements that are likely copyrighted. (Some of the photos are from countries that have FOP for artwork; however, it seems unlikely that the artwork on the vehicles would be considered to be permanently installed in a fixed location.)
- File:"Red Bull" MINI, Belfast - geograph.org.uk - 1619759.jpg
- File:2009-04-18 Red Bull car in Durham.jpg
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 01.JPG
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 02.JPG
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 03.JPG
- File:Daini Keihin 09.jpg
- File:Fukushima Sky Park REDBULL MINI R55 EXTRA 300S.JPG
- File:HK MK Bute Street Castle Peak Road MiniBus.JPG
- File:It gives you wings - geograph.org.uk - 1438693.jpg
- File:MINI Cooper Red Bull (Orange Julep).jpg
- File:Mini for Red Bull campaign in Sofia, Bulgaria.jpg
- File:Mini Red Bull Międzyzdroje1.JPG
- File:Mini Red Bull Międzyzdroje2.JPG
- File:Mini Red Bull.jpg
- File:Pic-004-the whole of Redbull MINI.JPG
- File:Pic-005-the back of Redbull MINI.JPG
- File:PKW Red Bull beim Eishockey.jpg
- File:Red Bull advertising Mini in Canberra City Centre.jpg
- File:Red Bull car in Le Havre (France).jpg
- File:Red Bull Car.JPG
- File:Red Bull Cola Mini at Piccadilly Circus.jpg
- File:Red Bull Cola Mini in Cleveland.jpg
- File:RED BULL Mini (R55) front.jpg
- File:RED BULL Mini (R55) rear.jpg
- File:Red Bull Mini - Flickr - FaceMePLS.jpg
- File:Red Bull Mini 01 ies.jpg
- File:RED BULL MINI 1.JPG
- File:RED BULL MINI 2.JPG
- File:Red Bull Mini BCN.jpg
- File:Red Bull Mini Cooper S in Flushing.jpg
- File:Red Bull MiNi One 2003 (9168902847).jpg
- File:Red Bull Mini.jpg
- File:Red Bull2.jpg
- File:REDBULL MINI R55.JPG
- File:Voiture pub redbull.jpg
- File:Wuppertal - Vogelsauer Treppe, untere 04 ies.jpg
- File:Рекламный Мини Купер-пикап. Алма-Ата.JPG
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_front.jpg){kind=link}
_rear.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 09:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: this is ridiculous. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. An interesting case; for now I oppose on technical grounds: images should be split by country and detailed FoP analysis presented for them. In either case, we are looking at a huge potential problem with the parent category Category:Advertising vehicles or even Category:Outdoor advertising, and this discussion should be focused on the big issue. I'll post a question to Commons talk:Freedom of panorama. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Please refile on a case-by-case basis, separated by country. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Minis as Red Bull campaign car
[edit]Derivative work of artistic elements on the vehicles; FOP in the US does not extend to artwork.
- File:2009-04-18 Red Bull car in Durham.jpg
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 01.JPG
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 02.JPG
- File:Boston - Red Bull cars 03.JPG
- File:Red Bull Cola Mini in Cleveland.jpg
- File:Red Bull Mini Cooper S in Flushing.jpg
Gazebo (talk) 09:00, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- This affects images in every category up to Category:Red Bull itself. There is no reason why this is restricted to the artwork being used on cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. It seems to be a common policy to accept such images per Commons_talk:Freedom_of_panorama#Is_FoP_covering_outdoor_advertising.3F. Also, the case discussed should be all images at Category:Outdoor advertising in the United States, with a correspondingly larger discussion. This tiny discussion should not be used as a sneaky precedent for an instance of meta:copyright paranoia. Please escalate it to all affected images, and notify all affected parties. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: The logos therein may be copyrighted. However, the images themselves are user-created works. They are merely advertisements. --AEMoreira042281 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Comment The images contain derivative work of copyright protected material. For countries having FOP I'd say the cars are permanently modified, they are not artwork themselves but they are modified the way they are to be permanently in public space for advertising, so covered by FOP. In this cases, though, the origin country is the US without having FOP for artwork, so I see no possibility to keep them. --Krd 17:56, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom/Krd. INeverCry 23:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
It is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Thegoldenavatar (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It is licensed under cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 Thegoldenavatar (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 07:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely not own work, it is a logo of a TV show. Whether or not it fails under PD-simple is another thing. Wojciech Pędzich Talk 17:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Masur. JuTa 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No evidence image was released under Creative Commons Green Cardamom (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No evidence image was released under Creative Commons. Green Cardamom (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
2 year old diagram with little information, orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 07:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
No description, unremarkable, not educational. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 07:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I want to delete this and other files, but I don't know how to. Please, instruct me on how to do it, then I'll do it myself... Thank you. Clausgroi (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Text only, out of scope. Likely copyright violation because it is the Spanish version of the liner notes of Genesis 1970–1975. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unreadable text.orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I want to delete this and other files, but I don't know how to. Please, instruct me on how to do it, then I'll do it myself... Thank you. Clausgroi (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Text only, out of scope. Likely copyright violation because it is the Spanish version of the liner notes of Genesis 1970–1975. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
out of project scope; user has nog been active since 2007 and then had placed a now removed cv on his user page; privacy protection MoiraMoira (talk) 07:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The source doesn't mention the right to use this picture with a Creative Commons licence. It's actually not sure at all that this website owns the rights of this picture ! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted Monopoly ad shown. (The ad appears to be newer than the original Monopoly board.) Gazebo (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The depicted "hockey player" game piece is likely copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 09:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
According to Commons:Currency, UK banknotes are copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
not of sufficient quality to be useful, no clear description, Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 09:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unremarkable CGI, ?screengrab. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chrome Aibaa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, private images
BrightRaven (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Picture without EXIF data, that can be found elsewhere on the web. This website mentions this photo comes from the movie "Voir ce que devient l'ombre" by M. Chatellier, Tarmak Films. BrightRaven (talk) 09:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a picture from the poster of the movie "Voir ce que devient l'ombre": [1], so it can be speedy deleted. BrightRaven (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unlocatable work site, orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep. No reason for deletion. In fact, we have an entire category for unidentified locations. Moreover, do some research first! I was able to locate it. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)- Keep: The descriptions says clearly where is, Br. José Batlle y Ordoñez, located in Montevide, Uruguay, where the Freedom of panorama is allowed. The file is not currently in use, but may be very useful. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality vanity shot. orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that the architect of this building from 1920 died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 10:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: no evidence that this bust is in the public domain. Eleassar (t/p) 10:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free graffiti. Eleassar (t/p) 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free fresco. Eleassar (t/p) 10:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free architecture by Anton Suhadolc (d. 1983). Eleassar (t/p) 10:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 10:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free model of a train. Eleassar (t/p) 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture by Mirsad Begič. Eleassar (t/p) 10:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture by Lujo Vodopivec. Eleassar (t/p) 10:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free wall painting, not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 10:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 10:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
COM:DW, no permission Krd 10:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free sculpture of a dog and a non-free billboard. Eleassar (t/p) 10:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted map. No COM:FOP#Japan and copyvio. Vantey (talk) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture and sculpture (the atlantes of Đukić's blocks, Župančičeva 14) Eleassar (t/p) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern architecture. Eleassar (t/p) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free modern sculpture by Lujo Vodopivec. Eleassar (t/p) 10:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free space invaders, not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 10:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free space invaders, not de minimis. Eleassar (t/p) 10:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free monument by Janez Boljka (d. 2013). Eleassar (t/p) 10:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free advertisements. Eleassar (t/p) 10:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free advertisement and architecture (Bank of Slovenia). Eleassar (t/p) 10:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free advertisement. Eleassar (t/p) 10:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free drawing of a cat. Eleassar (t/p) 10:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Advertising.
Juggler2005 (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
out of scope, only text Ezarateesteban 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Poor qualty image of a non-notable band. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Invalid licence: this is not a photograph, but an engraving. 1936 is not old enough to be sure the author is dead for more than 70 years. BrightRaven (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S The Singer (talk · contribs)
[edit]There is no FOP in France.
- File:Vue extérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg 4.jpg
- File:Vue extérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg 2.jpg
- File:Vue extérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg 3.jpg
- File:Façade du Parlement européen de Strasbourg et drapeaux.jpg
- File:Panorama de l'extérieur du Parlement européen de Strasbourg et des drapeaux européens.jpg
- File:Cour intérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg.jpg
- File:Panorama de la cour intérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg.jpg
- File:Hémicycle du Parlement européen de Strasbourg durant un débat.jpg
- File:Vue extérieure du Parlement européen de Strasbourg 1.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 13:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality image of unknown person. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 13:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Artist (https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agust%C3%AD_Ferrer_i_Pino) was dead in 1960 (image is copyrighted) Kippelboy (talk) 13:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Artist (https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agust%C3%AD_Ferrer_i_Pino) was dead in 1960 (image is copyrighted) Kippelboy (talk) 13:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Stock album image of a non-notable person. Orphaned image Richard Avery (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
A minute image for a non-notable Brazilian american football team. Orphaned image Richard Avery (talk) 14:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused; and looks like a TV screengrab. Lupo 14:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
TV screengrab/photo of TV screen Lupo 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр Алексеевич Лапшин (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр Алексеевич Лапшин (talk · contribs)
[edit]Several logos of non-notable Russian companies, and two photos of a non-notable woman. All these images are unused. Out of scope.
- File:Термоконт.JPG
- File:Наталья Троян.jpg
- File:Наталья Троян на выпускном.jpg
- File:Логотип ООО СИКМО.JPG
- File:ТЭКО.png
- File:Justinf.jpg
- File:Logo 22 большой.jpg
- File:Эмблема Энергетика.gif
XXN, 19:54, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Cliched sea view. Nothing extraordinary. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 14:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Commons:Derivative work from modern art. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Diego Rebel Oficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of album covers and promo photos. I think copyrights holder permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:2013 - I LOVE REGGAE - Rebel Sound Band.jpg
- File:2012 - CLASICOS REGGAE - Diego Rebel.jpg
- File:2011 - MELODICA & REGGAE - Diego Rebel.jpg
- File:2013 - SABES QUE SI - Diego Rebel.jpg
- File:DIEGO REBEL.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be widely available product shot, no evidence that Flickr user owns the rights: http://www.deemaxwell.com/discount-best-quality-nike-zoom-hyperfuse-xdr-men-white-black-war-boots-for-sale-p-1403.html Ytoyoda (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Was used in 2 slanderous attack articles on English WP (now deleted), likely personality rights violation, otherwise personal out-of-scope photo. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete No freedom of panorama in US for modern sculptures - this derivative image of a 2009 sculpture (see http://www.proctorbronzes.com/gallery_commissions_transition.php) is a copyright violation without the consent of the sculptor. Ww2censor (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete No freedom of panorama in US for modern sculptures - this is a derivative image of what looks like a modern sculpture but we have no details of the creation or erection date to determine if it is a copyright violation or not and without the consent of the sculptor it should be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 15:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete No freedom of panorama in US for modern sculptures - this derivative image of a 2009 sculpture (see Tug of War by Stanley Proctor - http://www.proctorbronzes.com/public_installations.php) is a copyright violation without the consent of the sculptor. Ww2censor (talk) 15:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete No freedom of panorama in US for modern sculptures - this derivative image of a 1998 sculpture (see Follow the Leader by Stanley Proctor - http://www.dms.myflorida.com/business_operations/real_estate_development_and_management/facilities_management/building_information/governor_s_mansion/the_people_s_house/areas_of_the_mansion/virtual_tours/today/entrance_park/florida_s_finest) is a copyright violation without the consent of the sculptor. Ww2censor (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
this sucks, man! the guy is a fraud! 186.22.52.100 23:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Non-sense and possibly vandalical DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Dunes". Binksternet (talk) 02:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Pismo". Binksternet (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Lobos Cyprus". Binksternet (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Herst Moon". Binksternet (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Daly City". Binksternet (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Seadrift". Binksternet (talk) 02:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Sutra Baths". Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Bolinas". Binksternet (talk) 02:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Drakes Beach". Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Sonoma State Beach". Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Dracons Landing". Binksternet (talk) 02:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Van Damme". Binksternet (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Mendocino county beach in california with a view looking west at or towards the pacific ocean.JPG
[edit]
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Before Mendocino". Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Ten-Mile Beach". Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Ten-Mile Beach2". Binksternet (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Lost Coast". Binksternet (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files by LegitEliminator
[edit]- File:Arcovenator escotae 2014-05-16 22-27.jpg from [2]
- File:Holotype 2014-05-16 22-18.jpg
- File:Qianzhousaurus hunting a Nankangia! 2014-05-16 22-03.jpg from [3]
Likely copyvios, please see the user's talk page. -jonkerz ♠talk 16:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Overview". Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "South Spit". Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Lost Coast3". Binksternet (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion requested. Image was previously deleted by community consensus in Commons:Deletion requests/Files by User:Albianmoonlight. Binksternet (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Previously published in several forms including a gallery exhibition at Galerie West, Netherlands. See the artist David Horvitz, the photo labeled "Lost coast2". Binksternet (talk) 02:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal vanity photo. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Taken from here (it's older in flickr) Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Screenshot of a copyright protected Operating System Sreejith K (talk) 18:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Magog the Ogre as no license. Well there is a {{PD-URAA}} tag, but a license for its source country is missing, which ever that is. JuTa 18:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sci-Fi Channel is now simply Syfy and none of the old logos exist anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.60.84.186 (talk • contribs) 2014-08-25T22:39:08 (UTC)
- Speedy keep please: This older logo is currently in use in the correspondient context and must be kept also for historical reasons. No valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep We host everything, not just current. Fry1989 eh? 17:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – We do not routinely delete historical logos. (Although those that are kept should be clearly marked with dates in use to prevent confusion, as this one is.) Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 04:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Per Fry1989 precedent comment. - Fma12 (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a still from a film. The uploader may have taken the image, but I doubt the uploader owns the film. Del♉sion23 (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unusable uneducational blurry photo of a home-made tool. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Unusable personal photo. Poor quality, uneducational. Out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Poor quality, better replacements in category:Pedrún de Torío Aloneinthewild (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. -- Tuválkin ✉ 02:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Advertising. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Picanteria karol and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arroz con pato 02.jpg. Juggler2005 (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete That deletion request is irrelevant; it only said that being part of the category was not an automatic reason to delete. I don't see any educational value here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
personal artwork, nonotable artist, of no educational value to project Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept, no new argumentsYmblanter (talk) 18:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This file is uploaded by a completely amateur artist, not notable for their naive or outsider art. it is a personal work of art, of value only to the uploader, and serves no educational or artistic purpose to this archive of images. I would appreciate that administrators NOT keep this file unless at there is some evidence that someone has at least addressed the merits of my arguments. this is the third time which this has been brought, with no addressing of the reasons for deletion. even the words "i believe it is in scope" would show some effort. the uploader has previously uploaded dozens of plainly useless files, and was permanently banned from WP for his complete inability to comprehend the procedures there. this file is no different Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted I see no reason to keep this image and don't understand the decisions above. This is clearly unused personal art by a non-notable artist and, as such, has no place on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: the building in the background, work by the architect Josip Černivec (d. 1964), is copyrighted and not de minimis per COM:De minimis#Slovenia; it takes a larger part of the image and is thus not incidental. Eleassar (t/p) 07:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Cropped the building as much as possible, should be DM now as the building is unintentionally in the background. --Sporti (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: now quailifies as DM Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
doppelt vorhanden / Original ist qualit. besser Ekpah (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 18:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
posssible copyviol: work based on gmaps screenshot Ciaurlec (talk) 09:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Remember than the maps from Google Maps are non-free. To the uploader: To avoid these problems, please use OpenStreetMap instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: derivatine of a non-free object Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sculpture by a contemporary artist. No information about the location, so it is difficult to check the FOP, but there is not FOP for sculptures in Russia. BrightRaven (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyrighted Ymblanter (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{copyvio|1=Reason}} Medishh (talk) 10:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete possibly just the uploader request. Ankry (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request, possibly just uploaded someone's else'e photo Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Misspellings DeniseAshurstUK (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: In any case, out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 18:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
error AMY (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 18:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
de:Florian Schade deleted; no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Krd 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
de:Florian Schade deleted; no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope Krd 15:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:FAO logos
[edit]The {{PD-UN}} template has been deprecated and the FAO website has a clear copyright statement so there is no reason to assume that these logos are free.
LGA talkedits 00:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Updated File:FAO logo.svg as it is just a very simple logo ineligible for copyright anyway. Trademark like rights may apply as it is an official logos of a UN body. Matt (talk) 04:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- It exceeds a simple logo and would not be covered by {{PD-Textlogo}}, the ears of corn are not simple shapes. LGA talkedits 05:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep There is no reasonable reason to assume that these logos are unfree. --Leyo 22:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes there is, firstly there is the copyright notice on the website and secondly there is no proof of any release. LGA talkedits 22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- No reason to repeat yourself. Similarly, there is no proof that such a simple logo of a UN organization is unfree. (We are not talking on other parts of the FAO website.) --Leyo 17:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well allows for United Nations works to be copyrighted, this logo is over the COM:TOO even for the US for example it is more complex than Disney Junior logo which has been registered (VAu001043271) and also w:File:Prince logo.svg. Finally the burden is on up-loaders or persons arguing for the file to be retained to provide the evidence the file is in the public domain and you have not as yet provided anything. LGA talkedits 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- No reason to repeat yourself. Similarly, there is no proof that such a simple logo of a UN organization is unfree. (We are not talking on other parts of the FAO website.) --Leyo 17:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: The UN has over 3,600 registered copyrights since 1978. We have no evidence that these logos are free. The burden of proof is on the uploader. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This looks like it came from a French government website, and is not the creation of the uploader. The basic design probably dates to 1998, when the body that currently uses this insignia, was formed, so it probably is under copyright; as far as I know, military insignia or other government works in France are not automatically public domain. —innotata 02:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
poor quality, personal image, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- This is an entirely different rationale for deletion than the previous one, which was correct in general, but not on these specific images. this not a naive work of art by a child. this is an adult's work, which is being used in various places to provide documentation for wikisource and other subjects aside from childrens art.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
incorrect licensing tag, and also out scope as personal artwork by nonnotable artist Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted I don't understand the earlier DR above -- it appears to be about the same image, but this is not art, either by a child or an adult. It is a poor quality snapshot of a young woman in front of Mount Rushmore. It is not in use anywhere and is not listed in the large DR cited above. It is tagged with {{PD-ineligible}}, which is plainly wrong, and has no license. Even leaving the quality issue aside, without a license, we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur art by nonnotable artist, out of scope as educational image Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
personal artwork by nonnotable artist, image contains no informational/educational purpose Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur map, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:59, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crudely drawn map of no educational use, thus personal artwork out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why are you repetitively renominating this with no significant change in your offered deletion rationale? That could be considered semi-annoying... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Because no one has actually considered the rationale for my deletion. if someone can argue that this is IN scope and of any value to project, i would be glad to hear it. Natuur12 kept it for no reason, i believe out of spite to me (why else would someone keep this?). that is not semi-annoying at all, its simply annoying. I shouldnt have to prepare a doctoral dissertation on this work to have it removed. rather, if someone wants to pay my full tuition and pay my household costs to go to grad school to study Wikipedia, and actually produce a thesis on this file, id be happy to do so:)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Additional rationale: uploader has made numerous uploads of incredibly poor quality. anything that was traced or copied by him must be considered suspect as inaccurate, and since he is not a well known naive artist, this is not a valid artistic file we can host, as we dont host nonnotable works of art generally (some original creations are high quality accurate portrayals of facts, and have been allowed).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept Although I can't imagine why, this image has actually been in use on WP:PT for two years. Therefore, it cannot be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
creator of this map has taken out so much of the original maps details, that this version is useless in what it tries to convey, in addition to being of extremely poor quality. previous DR was a "keep" as file was being used. it was inapproprate to that article, and is nolonger in use. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom and past discussions. This is an incredibly bad map, no need for this at all. -- Tuválkin ✉ 18:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed. No longer in use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- Strongly propose that User:Mercurywoodrose not be allowed further repetitive deletion nominations which adduce no new useful or relevant information, and serve only to annoy others and take up admins' time. AnonMoos (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Strongly propose that AnonMoos checks the matter carefully before uttering strong proposes containing thinly veiled threats («not allowed», really?): The previous DR was closed by (Jameslwoodward) with a statement where his unfavourable opinion of this image was evident, but keeping it because it was in use. Meanwhile, said use was discontinued, and a new DR was dully filed by Mercurywoodrose. -- Tuválkin ✉ 12:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. INeverCry 01:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crudely colored bw image, altered from original, thus personal artwork and out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept It is actually in use, as Mercurywoodrose should know -- he or she was the last person to edit the page that uses it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a hand colored image from a PD text. the coloring does not add any documentary value to the original, and is essentially a page from a coloring book, and not even an example of children's coloring, as it was done by the adult uploader. WP is not a repository for original art, and this cannot remain as a placeholder until the original, unaltered, is uploaded, as its too altered from the original to stand in for it. all previous arguments for keep are misplaced. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, 3rd nomination this year by the same user (as on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brick-making.png), uploaded 2009. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- The length of time its been here, and the fact it was nominated previously (by me or anyone else) and kept, are not in themselves arguments for keep. how is this encyclopedic, or educational, or artistic (as in valued original art)?Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as long as we don't have a scan of the original, unaltered artwork. --Sebari (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. --Krd 02:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
amateur artwork from nonotable artist, use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crudely colored image from PD work, thus personal artwork and out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept Another image in use on a page most recently edited by Mercurywoodrose. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a hand colored image from a PD text. the coloring does not add any documentary value to the original, and is essentially a page from a coloring book, and not even an example of children's coloring, as it was done by the adult uploader. WP is not a repository for original art, and this cannot remain as a placeholder until the original, unaltered, is uploaded, as its too altered from the original to stand in for it. all previous arguments for keep are misplaced. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep, 3rd nomination this year by the same user (as on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Delta berms.png), tineye found uses of this image uploaded 2009. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- I repeatedly nominate it because there is absolutely no chance that this image can qualify here. if so, then ANY art or modified art by ANY uploader would have to be kept, no matter how poorly done it is. we would have to keep blurry photos of coffee cups, as they could possibly be used by someone, somewhere. all the other artworks by this uploader have been deleted, this was overlooked. I will gladly withdraw my nom if someone can find a use for it and use it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as long as we don't have a scan of the original, unaltered artwork. --Sebari (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept per discussion. --Krd 02:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
colorized image from text, not accurate, and no educational purpose to colorization Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to previous Deletion Request, this and all the files listed in them was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 03:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crudely colored PD work, altered too much to be representational of original, personal artwork out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude artwork, personal and out of scope (not naive work of a child) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nazar look (talk · contribs)
[edit]Redrawn photos. For example, 1) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Memet_Niyaziy_%281878_-_1931%29.jpg and http://anaurt.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/4e581f0e7f5b.jpg?itok=4Q6YDQgn; 2) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emel_Emin_poet.jpg and http://usr-dobrogea.ro/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/emin.jpg. Probably derivative work of non-free content.
- File:Memet Niyaziy (1878 - 1931).jpg
- File:Ziyaeddin Ismail (1912-1996).jpg
- File:Sewkiy Bektore(1888-1961).jpg
- File:Emel Emin poet 2.jpg
- File:SevkiyBektore(1888-1961).jpg
- File:Kadriye Nurmambet, Crimean Tatar folk singer.jpg
- File:Emel Emin poet.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Juggler2005 (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Even if the images are PD, this is personal art and out of scope. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This has a Genman Freedom of panorama Issue, the image is taken from the Maintower building which as it has limited opening hours and charges for admission means it does not quilify as a location "dedicated to the public and publicly-accessible" therfore this image does not qualify for the FoP exception and the building shown will have copyright. LGA talkedits 06:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment You seem to be suggesting that the building will have copyright if taken from the Main Tower, but will be ok FOP-wise if taken from the street. What about if one was in a helicopter and took a photo from the same angle? It's novel, I'll give you that ;) russavia (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly right, the German FoP uses the location the image was taken to determine if FoP applies, a picture taken of the building from a public street would be free. The use of a helicopter is listed at COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany as one of the reasons that disqualifies a picture from § 59 UrhG. LGA talkedits 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Do you have any proof the image was taken from the viewing terrace (which charges for admission) and not from the restaurant (which does not charge any admission fees)? While viewing terrace may not be considered publicly accessible, restaurant is definitely a place dedicated to public — NickK (talk) 19:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- A restaurant would not be "dedicated to the public" under the the law, again a check of COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany shows that "station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public." if a subway station does not qualify then a restaurant would not. LGA talkedits 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would suppose that this is due to the fact that the abovementioned places are considered dedicated to trains and airplanes respectively, as only transport infrastructure is mentioned here. On the other hand, I can't see what restaurants can be dedicated to other then public, thus it would be good if you could show anything proving this — NickK (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of all the sections in COM:FOP the German one is by far the best referenced including one case about parks that failed the "dedicated to the public" test as the publics use was limited, the same would apply to a restaurant it has a limited public use and undoubtedly has some form of admission control such as limited opening hours or the need for pre-booking or the like. Having said all that per COM:EVID, if you can show that German law treats restaurant as "dedicated to the public" and there is no form of admission control in the Maintower restaurant and this image was taken from inside that restaurant I will withdraw. LGA talkedits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You probably know better that there is no way to prove whether this image was taken from inside the restaurant or from inside the terrace, as both are located at the same building at the same level. I am not aware of any German cases concerning FOP for images taken from restaurants (or similar cases, e.g. concerning bars or supermarkets), thus I would better ask for help someone more experienced in German FOP cases — NickK (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- All of which is moot when you look at the towers vistor information section and see that there are admission controls " i.e. you can only visit the Restaurant during it opening hours and only if you agree to and pass the security checks. LGA talkedits 10:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- You probably know better that there is no way to prove whether this image was taken from inside the restaurant or from inside the terrace, as both are located at the same building at the same level. I am not aware of any German cases concerning FOP for images taken from restaurants (or similar cases, e.g. concerning bars or supermarkets), thus I would better ask for help someone more experienced in German FOP cases — NickK (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of all the sections in COM:FOP the German one is by far the best referenced including one case about parks that failed the "dedicated to the public" test as the publics use was limited, the same would apply to a restaurant it has a limited public use and undoubtedly has some form of admission control such as limited opening hours or the need for pre-booking or the like. Having said all that per COM:EVID, if you can show that German law treats restaurant as "dedicated to the public" and there is no form of admission control in the Maintower restaurant and this image was taken from inside that restaurant I will withdraw. LGA talkedits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @LGA: what about if I was skydiving and I took photographs as I was floating down to the earth? Would that be covered by FOP in Germany do you think? russavia (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, it will depend on at what point something seeks to be an accessory, with reference to COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany and take for example a ladder, if someone used a ladder to climb a wall and the stood on the wall and took the picture, technically the leader was not in use at the moment the picture was taken, however the taking of that picture was only possible because of the ladders prior use. In the same way I would conclude that given the use of the helicopters is not allowed I don't see why the same would not hold for the aircraft used to get you into a position to start the skydive or even the parachute used to slow the decent. LGA talkedits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @LGA: but what if the only reason one needed a ladder is because they were a height-challenged person (or whatever the PC word for midget is these days) and couldn't see over the wall without it. Wouldn't that be a case for the European Court of Human Rights? russavia (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- Again I don't know, purely on the basis of the copyright law you would have to say that the use of an "accessory" for what ever reason disqualifies a picture from § 59 UrhG, but what ever the German equivalent of the Disability Discrimination Act might conceivably override that, but obviously totally hypothetical in this case, might be relevant if Oscar Pistorius starts taking pictures of German buildings and uploads them to commons. LGA talkedits 14:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- @LGA: but what if the only reason one needed a ladder is because they were a height-challenged person (or whatever the PC word for midget is these days) and couldn't see over the wall without it. Wouldn't that be a case for the European Court of Human Rights? russavia (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know, it will depend on at what point something seeks to be an accessory, with reference to COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany and take for example a ladder, if someone used a ladder to climb a wall and the stood on the wall and took the picture, technically the leader was not in use at the moment the picture was taken, however the taking of that picture was only possible because of the ladders prior use. In the same way I would conclude that given the use of the helicopters is not allowed I don't see why the same would not hold for the aircraft used to get you into a position to start the skydive or even the parachute used to slow the decent. LGA talkedits 05:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would suppose that this is due to the fact that the abovementioned places are considered dedicated to trains and airplanes respectively, as only transport infrastructure is mentioned here. On the other hand, I can't see what restaurants can be dedicated to other then public, thus it would be good if you could show anything proving this — NickK (talk) 04:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- A restaurant would not be "dedicated to the public" under the the law, again a check of COM:Freedom of panorama#Germany shows that "station halls, subway stations or departure halls at airports that are publicly-accessible are nevertheless mostly not assumed to satisfy the “public” criterion due to their lack of dedication to the public." if a subway station does not qualify then a restaurant would not. LGA talkedits 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi, yeah, that's pretty clearly not covered by German FOP. Russavia is right that things get complicated at some point, but the case here is much clearer. For instance, it is even the predominant view in the literature that photographs made by Google's camera cars are no longer covered by FOP (Dreier in Dreier/Schulze, 4th ed., § 59 Rn. 4 m.w.N.; Dreyer in Dreyer/Kotthoff/Meckel, 3rd ed., § 59 Rn. 16 m.w.N.) precisely because a photo taken from three meters above the ground is no longer showing a view from the street. There are a few scholars disagreeing with this assessment, but that just shows that this is about where it gets borderline. A view from the air (as Russavia suggests) is not covered by FOP (as the Federal High Court explicitely said in BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus: "[...] Likewise, as far as a building is concerned, the view from the air is not privileged [by FOP], not least because it includes parts of the building that cannot be seen from the way, street or place."). "The purpose of the exceptional provision [i.e. FOP] is to allow the general public to view what they can see with their own eyes from the street by way of a painting, a drawing, a photograph or a film." (BGH, I ZR 192/00 = GRUR 2003, 1035 – Hundertwasserhaus). Cheers, — Pajz (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- "limited opening hours": Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen. (quote from de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium „öffentlich“
- "charges for admission": Not mentioned in § 59 UrhG!
This picture is indeed covered by German FOP! a×pdeHello! 12:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- That is not the very long-standing view of commons (see the very well referenced COM:FOP#Germany), I an not arguing with "Eine zeitweilige, insbesondere nächtliche Schließung steht der Öffentlichkeit nicht entgegen." for the viewing deck but it is the admission charge that voids any claim to being publicly accessible see Obergfell in Büscher/Dittmer/Schiwy, Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz, Urheberrecht, Medienrecht, 2nd ed. (2011). LGA talkedits 22:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Thesuperrbm as Fair use (Non-free) and the most recent rationale was: logo|professional wrestling logos|image has rationale=yes KTo288 (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment-Logos deminimis? Main subject, of file as it now is, is the wrestlers.--KTo288 (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep - Logo is Commons:De minimis. The picture is clearly about one beast and one deadman. Starship.paint (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: The logo is DM. The tatoo might be a problem, but I think it is also DM. I have added the license and {{Flickrreview}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:12, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Krasnooknyanskiy rayon prapor.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:55, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude artwork, personal, out of scope, no educational value Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, no educational value, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude artwork of no educational value, nonnotable artist Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude artwork, personal and out of scope (not a nottable naive artist) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, of no educational value, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, personal art out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, personal and out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, of no educational value, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude map, personal art and out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, out of scope, its use at wikisource is completely inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
- Speede keep please: According to another DR, this and all the files listed was kept. Amitie 10g (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware of the previous mass deletion request. my rationale this time is entirely different, and the previous decision has no bearing on my concerns.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crude art, nonotable artist, out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope. User page image that is not in use. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Now displayed in User:J-Ronn --John Ronn talk 11:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Fair enough. I retract my nomination. This DR can be closed. Lemmens, Tom (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll no longer use this. No longer needed anyway. Please delete. John Ronn talk 08:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted as above. Yann (talk) 10:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Unremarkable image labelled "early learning". Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- In this context, the meaning is more the "set up" for the game. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Bilaivskiy rayon prapor.png and File:Biliayivka Raion Flag.svg Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Izmail COA old.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Artsyzskyi rayon coa.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Jacques Doucet's hôtel particulier, 33 rue Saint-James, Neuilly-sur-Seine, 1929 photograph by Pierre Legrain.jpg
[edit]
While it's true that the photographer of this image died in 1929, it's not in the public domain as it prominently depicts a painting by Pablo Picasso, who has died only in 1973. Thereby the photo is a derivative of the painting. It might be out of copyright in the U.S., but rather surely not in Europe, where it is/was located and where the photo had been taken. -- Túrelio (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Indeed the photographer Pierre Legrain died in 1929, thus qualifying for PD old in France and public domain worldwide. The photograph depicts an interior scene which includes one of the (if not the) most important painting(s) in the History of art by Pablo Picasso. This work—out of copyright in the United States since it was published before 1923 in Gelett Burgess, Wild Men of Paris, The Architectural Record, New York, May 1910—is seen here hanging on the back wall behind an Art Deco staircase banister in exceedingly low resolution with a highly grainy texture and in black and white. In addition, the work in question occupies less than 1/8 of the surface area of the image. For these reasons this photo is not a derivative of Les Demoiselles d’Avignon, i.e., it’s not the only work of art in the image (there are 4 other works visible, 2 of which occupy more surface area of the photo than Les Demoiselles), none of its colors are visible, and it is not shown in a resolution where it could be classified as depicted prominently. The image itself is surely public domain in Europe as well. Coldcreation (talk) 10:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The image itself is surely public domain in Europe as well - No, it is not. 1973 +70 = 2043. In addition, France has no freedom-of-panorama exception. --Túrelio (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- The author of the photo, Pierre Legrain (1889-1929), died in 1929. It is thus public domain in Europe. The question hinges on wether or not this photo represents a derivative of the painting by Picasso, i.e., wether 1973 +70 = 2043 applies or not. Freedom-of-panorama is irrelevant here. The arguments as to why the photo is in the public domain in Europe are summarized below:
- Les Demoiselles is shown hanging in the background.
- Resolution is in exceedingly low.
- The grainy texture blurs details.
- The image is reproduced in black and white (colors are not shown).
- The painting occupies less than 1/8 of the surface area of the image.
- There are four other works besides Les Demoiselles.
- Two works by other artists (the art deco banister and chandelier) are shown larger than Les Demoiselles.
Coldcreation (talk) 08:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore:
Coldcreation (talk) 09:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Many creative works are a derivative work of something, but in most cases, copyright can't be claimed on them because of varying factors. For photographs for example, exceptions include it not being a creative work, having utilitarian functions... (Source: Commons:Derivative works)
- Just a quick reality-check: all current uses of this image file on Wikimedia projects are solely for the Picasso painting.
- Anyway, I would welcome more expert opinions in this DR. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. Yann (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
name of autor on picture Rudko (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The name of the author in the picture is the same of the uploader, and therefore, there is a very high (or full) possibility than the author is the uploader. But, the author does not mentioned where taken this picture, but the location appears to be in Slovakia, where Freedom of panorama is allowed. Therefore, I think than this file must be strongly kept, but the uploader (as the author if is him) must put more information in the file description. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the educational usefulness of this audio file. Fitoschido (talk) 02:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No consent of the depicted Person to publicate the picture visible. The depicted person is clearly the theme of the picture, so the photographer needs is consent for publication. Weissbier (talk) 10:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The photo is taken in a public location so I don't think consent is needed (IANAL). // Liftarn (talk)
- Of course it´s needed. The publication of this picture violates the depicted persons personal rights. Weissbier (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- As outlined in Commons:Country specific consent requirements, per law and jurisprudence of Germany consent is required to take and to publish a photo of identifiable persons. However, in this case the depicted person was clearly aware that his photo was taken, which may be construed as a consent to the photo being taken. In addition, as this photo has been shot 16 years ago (1998) and been published 9 years ago (2005) by a user identified per real name and is used on 3 pages on :de-Wikipedia, the depicted would likely have voiced protest against its publication, if he objected to its use. Not sure whether the latter is legally relevant, IANAL. --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- No its not. You don´t have to check every website in the universe if they use a photo of you without your consent. And it is totally irrelevant if the person is aware that a photo is being taken. The problem is the publication itself and not taking the picture. And the person does not pose or in another way show that it was paid for modelling. He just sits there whilst doing his job.Weissbier (talk) 06:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- As outlined in Commons:Country specific consent requirements, per law and jurisprudence of Germany consent is required to take and to publish a photo of identifiable persons. However, in this case the depicted person was clearly aware that his photo was taken, which may be construed as a consent to the photo being taken. In addition, as this photo has been shot 16 years ago (1998) and been published 9 years ago (2005) by a user identified per real name and is used on 3 pages on :de-Wikipedia, the depicted would likely have voiced protest against its publication, if he objected to its use. Not sure whether the latter is legally relevant, IANAL. --Túrelio (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It is correct that consent is required, but there is no evidence that it doesn't exist. Krd 09:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No consent of the depicted Persons (or their parents, since they seem to be minors) to publicate the picture. The depicted persons are clearly the theme of the picture and not a crowd (less than 10 Persons), so the photographer needs is consent for publication. Weissbier (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- The nominator is correct in that law of Germany requires consent to take and to publish a photo of identifiable persons, as outlined in Commons:Country specific consent requirements. However, this case is a bit borderline as the depicted persons did actually pose for the image, so they obviously gave consent at least for the photo being taken.
- Anyway, if there is reasonable doubt, such images should be deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Since the depicted persons are obviously minors, they can´t give any lawful consent. Only their parents or legal guardians can. Weissbier (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in use, non-notable individuals, out of scope. Krd 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Same as File:Sielstraße_Nürnberg_006.JPG Weissbier (talk) 11:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Not in use, non-notable individuals, out of scope. Krd 09:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
de:Mögliche Urheberrechtsverletzung. Logo einer Körperschaft. Der hochladende Benutzer hat nicht dargelegt ,daß er als Ersteller auch Urheberrechtsinhaber ist. Ggf. zur Sicherheit Commons:OTRS. Zenwort (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Krd 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
amateur artwork, just a colored in page from an historic text. use at wikisource is inappropriate Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
crudely colored in PD work, altered from original to make it worthless as a representation, personal and out of scope Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, first time the file was kept, because it was used in wikisource. It is not used anymore. Taivo (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
No consent of the depicted person to the publication of the picture given. Person ist clearly idetifieable und the theme of the picture. Additionally the depicted person could be underage. Weissbier (talk) 11:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept, this is public place (street with a lot of people) and the girl is clearly posing, so she agrees being photographed. Nothing strange or shameful happens in the photo. I thought to delete the photo as out of scope, but the photo is used in de.wiki on user page. Taivo (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no evident consent for the publication of this picture from the depicted persons. They are clearly the theme of the picture, identifieable and not a crowd. Additionally the disabeled person seems to be underage. Violation of personal rights. Weissbier (talk) 11:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo (367×258 pixels) without metadata, can be copyright violation. Also this is unused personal photo, so maybe out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Worse version of File:Liubashivka Raion COA.png Yuriy Kvach (talk) 11:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this photo has resolution only 211×267 pixels, the other has 398×485. This file is unused. Taivo (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Unknown man, album image. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 14:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Not an "unknown man", he's identified in the description. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Probably copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unusable personal photo. Out of scope. Just because it's licensed CC, doesn't mean a bot should upload it. P 1 9 9 ✉ 20:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- how do you know! could be useful one day for someone ! -- Dzlinker (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Could be useful someday" is not a reason to keep it. With that reason we should keep literally everything! --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Beautiful photo of children. I would have left.Stuchka (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- "Could be useful someday" is not a reason to keep it. With that reason we should keep literally everything! --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Well yes, everything can be unusable as well as usuable. I don't see other problem with the image. Hence would keep it. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, I do not like it. Taivo (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Source???Tonka (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Keep Amada44 (talk) 07:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Comment I'd translate this file from File:DemoBIH2006a.PNG, in english Wikipedia, but now this image was deleted, I don't know because. --Goldorak (talk) 11:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems it has never existed(if it had, there would be a message with the reason for deletion). --GaAs11671 15:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)- OK, this is DemoBIH2006.PNG (without the "a"): 21:38, 29 December 2006 Electionworld (talk | contribs) deleted "File:DemoBIH2006.PNG" (Moved to commons). The image on commons has also be deleted: 5 juin 2008 à 19:39 Siebrand (discuter | contributions) a supprimé « File:DemoBIH2006.PNG » (Dupe of Image:DemoBIH2006a.png). An admin could bring back the original description. Keep --GaAs11671 16:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm an admin on en-wiki. The deleted page said:
- == Summary ==
- Taken from Serbian Wikipedia, the Republika Srpska article. It was created by a Serbian user based on various statistical data.
- There are some inaccuracies in the map (borders of Brčko district, etc.)
- == Licensing ==
- {{GFDL-no-disclaimers}}:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]:<nowiki> :<nowiki>[[Category:Maps of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
So source wasn't quite clear on en-wiki, either, but might be on the Serbian Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It gives 5 janvier 2007 à 00:11 Саша Стефановић a supprimé « Слика:DemoBIH2006.PNG » (Има на остави под истим именом) (automatic translation: It has to leave under the same name). We should not delete files before ensuring the derivatives are correctly described. :( --GaAs11671 13:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- LoL, that automatic translation isn't ok. That is template for "File exist on commons under same name". This is file description on sr: wiki before was deleted because being duplicate. Licence was {{PD}} and author is "Varjacic Vladimir"
Autor varjačić Vladimir, podaci po proceni federelnog zavoda za statistiku, Distikt Brčko je uzet po dejtonskoj podeli iako je jedna celina da bi se video sastav stanovništva po sastavnim delovima. podaci su po aktuelnoj teritorijalnoj organizaciji 2006. godine.
{{PD}}
I deleted it just because being duplicate on sr: wiki. Саша Стефановић (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
- Duplicates of duplicates all deleted, and at the end just stays the duplicate duplicate duplicate duplicate whith no credible license info, and everything is deleted. :( --GaAs11671 21:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
This file was improperly transfered to wikimedia. I am asking that the file gets deleted so that it could be properly transfered from the serbian wikipedia. That way the file can show the original source and attribution. If you look at the source of this file you can see that there is indeed a significant amount of confusion going on, particularily in regards to the fact that several version have been uploaded ,and then against the copyright have been changed and altered over and over by careless users. Lilic (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, we had this discussion, and you continue edit war ?
It was a file under open licence. I corrected municipal borders, and national percenages. Shouldn't you stop already? You were told that you are wrong, countless timess... --Čeha (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- The file was improperly transferred to wikimedia commons, and it should be transferred properly. Hence this should be deleted, and the original should be transferred. I see nothing controversial here. This file is a derivative of a derivative, hence that is not proper. (Lilic (talk) 03:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)).
- No, this is newer edition of original under wikipedia open license which permited such change. Original is different map from this. It has errors. I am certain that you are capable of understanding this. --Čeha (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- The image was uploaded and re-uploaded so many times that the licensing was wrong. Furthermore, the author never uploads anything under such licenses. To top things off, the correct/incorrect matter of the map is not an issue here at all. I disagree with your statement that the map is not correct, and I will leave it at that, because quite frankly such opinions are not relevant to the issue at hand. (Lilic (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)).
Kept, I read carefully both conversations and I decided to keep it, because I tend to believe, that the file is licensed correctly. If the file was transferred from sr.wiki into en.wiki, then it was claimed, that the file consists errors, and Čeha said the same, so probably this is true. Čeha said, that he corrected errors, and I believe that also. So I keep the file and revert it into Čeha's version.
Sorry, there was also third discussion on file talk page. I trust Penyulap and therefore I do not revert the file. Let the current version be. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Under Penyulap, there was a consensus which hadn't been kept (Lilic nominated that map for deletion, and I didn't see nomination for deletion). As I said (and documented) current map is more correct than previous....--Čeha (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
This image is too similar to this image: [4] , and it is not the first time that such an image has been deleted. I would refer to this: [5] , cheers. (Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)) Lilic (talk) 03:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:DemoBIH2006.PNG){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:DemoBiH2006MunPrecise.png){kind=link}
Kept, although the files are similar, there are multiple differences. Commons has enough room for both. The request qualifies for speedy keep, because the file is used (and proposed replacement is used too). Lilic, please do not nominate the file for deletion anymore. Taivo (talk) 10:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Red Bull campaign cars
[edit]The depicted vehicle or vehicles incorporate artistic elements that are likely copyrighted. (Some of the photos may be from countries that have FOP for artwork; however, it seems unlikely that the artwork on the vehicles would be considered to be permanently installed in a fixed location.)
- File:1956RedBullVolvoSugga.jpg
- File:Audi tt 2008 redbull.jpg
- File:Audi tt redbull 2.jpg
- File:Audi tt redbull 3.jpg
- File:Audi tt redbull 5.jpg
- File:Audi tt redbull carlos paz.jpg
- File:Audi tt redbullFront.jpg
- File:Grand Prix of Donetsk 2012 (6931620114).jpg
- File:Land Rover Defender 110 RedBull 60 Jahre NRW-Fest Duesseldorf frontleft 2006-08-26 U.jpg
- File:Maruti Swift RedBULL.png
- File:Red Bull car at tuning party.jpg
- File:Red Bull S-Class (W126).jpg
- File:Red Bull Volkswagen Touareg Brazil 1.jpg
- File:Red Bull Volkswagen Touareg Brazil 2.jpg
- File:Renault-colorale-modif.jpeg
- File:Voiture publicitaire.JPG
- File:VW T5 Red Bull Międzyzdroje1.JPG
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Depending on photo I would guess that de minimis applies when the car is the subject of the photo. // Liftarn (talk)
- The tt pictures additionally suffer from pretty bad quality. Weissbier (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I understand the problem with these campaign car, I have no problem with deleting my Renault Colorale pics, but, this is a real oldtimer, and, I didn't found a lot of picture, so it could be a loss to delete it. --Freezed (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree with Liftarn. --MB-one (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete all of them, COM:FOP for all but North Korea requires the work to be permanently located in a place, none of these cars are permanently located. COM:DM can not apply to any of the images as the inclusion of the logo is nether trivial or incidental, a Fair Use case could be made on all of them but fair use is disallowed on commons, so consider uploading to a project that allows for that. LGA talkedits 22:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Definitely Keep File:Red Bull S-Class (W126).jpg, that's a very clear case of de minimis. De minimis might also apply to File:1956RedBullVolvoSugga.jpg (entire vehicle was photographed, no clear focus on the logo). File:Audi tt redbull 3.jpg (the elements in focus are below TOO), File:Audi tt redbull 5.jpg (ditto), File:Grand Prix of Donetsk 2012 (6931620114).jpg (vehicle photo where logo is simply an unavoidable part), File:Land Rover Defender 110 RedBull 60 Jahre NRW-Fest Duesseldorf frontleft 2006-08-26 U.jpg (ditto) and File:Red Bull Volkswagen Touareg Brazil 1.jpg (ditto). File:Voiture publicitaire.JPG is an interesting case. Are the stripes on the side of the car reflections, or are they part of the car's livery? I think the logos themselves are de minimis there (one of them is overexposed and clearly not the focus, and the other one is as incidentally in the background as a poster behind the car would be), but the stripes on the side might be creative enough. darkweasel94 07:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: some and kept the ones mentioned by Darkweasel94. Those should have a seperate DR if someone thinks that they are not okay. Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The depicted vehicle or vehicles incorporate artistic elements that are likely copyrighted. (Some of the photos may be from countries that have FOP for artwork; however, it seems unlikely that the artwork on the vehicles would be considered to be permanently installed in a fixed location.)
- File:Red Bull car.jpg
- File:Red Bull Volkswagen New Beetle Brazil 1.jpg
- File:Red Bull Volkswagen New Beetle Brazil 2.jpg
- File:Red Bull Volkswagen New Beetle Brazil 3.jpg
- File:VW New Beetle Red Bull Międzyzdroje1.JPG
- File:VW New Beetle Red Bull Międzyzdroje2.JPG
Gazebo (talk) 09:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Is this stamp really in the public domain? While the painting that is the basis for the stamp certainly is in the public domain, I would think that the stamp isn't, as the stamp was made less than 70 years ago. Blue Elf (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Painting is PD and the rest of the stamp is below com:TOO Natuur12 (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
As the author, I am requesting deletion of transferred from Fotopedia file, because on Commons there is one with all attribution Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: I am sure that what you wrote above is not what you really want to express. Do you mean that this image was already uploaded before and thus this file is a duplicate? If so, can you link to that other file? If, not, what do you mean? -- Tuválkin ✉ 17:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- OK, please help me to be correct. How do I link these files, which are duplicating existing files? I am quite illiterate in these things. Also, am I not entitled to confirm the license? Another question, the link to "my Fotobedia account" shows nothing - is`nt be better to replace it with Mykola Swarnyk, because the category "Transferred from Fotopedia" is there? Also, most of these files are not showing any geotags or geographic places - should I add them manually? Also, I don't see many of my pictures from Fotopedia - are they already lost or they still will appear here? Thanks for your help and patience. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Replying to Mykola’s points (some of which do digress from the main topic here — please bear with me):
- You can link here to the duplicate file by stating its' filename like this
[[:File:filename_of_duplicate]]. - Only license reviewers and administrators are entitled to confirm a claim made by un uploader (me, in this case) about a license expressed in a third-party site (Fotopedia, in this case). You being the author could short-circuit the whole and rearrange the story behind how this file come to Commons by stating
{{own}}as the source, but that is unnecessarily tortuous. Just let these files go with the usual workflow for authenticating licenses and please focus instead on providing, as their author, information that was missing (or lost) in the source webpage, such as date and location of many of these photos. (License review for File:YewThree.jpg may be moot, as you indicate it is a duplicate, though.) - Changing from
[http://www.fotopedia.com/users/4tg1q9r7sq5v1 Mykola Swarnyk]to[[User:Mykola Swarnyk]]seems like a good idea to me. - Geotagging and adding other additional information is very welcome!
- As discussed, upon closure on Aug.10th, Photopedia hosted around 22 thousand images with a copyright status suitable for Commons. Of those surely a large majority is also in scope for Commons, yet only 653 were uploaded so far. However, the whole of Fotopedia has been archived and it will be possible to extract and mass upload the whole soon — that will include also your missing images. That said, nothing prevents (quite the opposite!) you to contribute right now to Commons any content in scope as a Commons user (source:
{{own}}), regardless of it having been once posted to Fotopedia; those items will be excluded as duplicates upon mass upload.
- You can link here to the duplicate file by stating its' filename like this
- Thank you for your willingness in release your photography work under a free license! -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anyway, where’s the duplicate? -- Tuválkin ✉ 19:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Replying to Mykola’s points (some of which do digress from the main topic here — please bear with me):
- OK, please help me to be correct. How do I link these files, which are duplicating existing files? I am quite illiterate in these things. Also, am I not entitled to confirm the license? Another question, the link to "my Fotobedia account" shows nothing - is`nt be better to replace it with Mykola Swarnyk, because the category "Transferred from Fotopedia" is there? Also, most of these files are not showing any geotags or geographic places - should I add them manually? Also, I don't see many of my pictures from Fotopedia - are they already lost or they still will appear here? Thanks for your help and patience. Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 18:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, I felt I have to delete it because it is a "Tree", not a "Three" :-) Mykola Swarnyk (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to rename a file, asking for its deletion is a bad step. Instead, mark the file page with
{{rename|new_name}}(however do not do it while the requestion deletion is pending). For the record, the filenameYewThree.jpgwas chosen because:- The original title was «untitled»;
- it it a pun on «you too»;
- there are three visible arils on the photo (while only a small fraction of the whole tree);
- I had to come up with over 700 preemptively unique filenames ASAP as a (small) part of the daunting task of uploading manually an as big as possible fraction of 22 thousand free images from Fotopedia in a single week.
- While there are renaming guidelines that make it hard for purely cosmetic filename changes to be enforced, those are largely ignored and often actively disrespected by several admins, and furthermore your opinion, as the author, will always be prioritary when discussing such a change. Please note that, however,
untitled.jpgis already taken. If in mistake, you can withdraw your deletion request by adding*{{withdraw}} ~~~~at the end of this page. -- Tuválkin ✉ 01:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- If you wish to rename a file, asking for its deletion is a bad step. Instead, mark the file page with
Kept, the file is not a duplicate and bad name is not a reason to delete a file. I could rename a file, but I am not sure, that File:YewTree.jpg is a better name, so at moment I do not rename it. If Mykola wants to rename a file, then he can ask from Tuválkin or me. Taivo (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly violates trademark of OOA fonden. Use of the smiling sun logo is permitted only with the slogan " NUCLEAR POWER? – NO THANKS " or a translation thereof. see http://www.smilingsun.org/page_3.html Johannes Rohr (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Da ist nichts Schützenswertes enthalten. Die Datei ist zu Recht als gemeinfrei gekennzeichnet. --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Es geht hier um Markenrecht, unabhängig von der Frage der Schöpfungshöhe, siehe http://www.smilingsun.org/page_4.html Das Smiling Sun Logo ist eine eingetragene Gemeinschaftsmarke, die entsprechendem Markenschutz unterliegt. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Markenrecht interessiert uns nicht, es tangiert das Urheberrecht nicht. Sonst dürften wir ja kein einziges Auto mehr fotografieren, Leuchtreklame wäre geschützt, fast jeder Alltagsgegenstand. --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Es geht nicht um die Abbildung des ursprünglichen Logos. Es geht um das Abwandeln des geschützten Logos. Die Abbildung des Original-Logos ist unproblematisch, nicht aber die Modifikation, siehe auch w:en:Wikipedia:Logo_Copyright/Trademark#Copyright_versus_trademark, sprich, es ist als Anti-Atom-Logo eingetragen und geschützt und darf daher nicht als Anti-Paid-Editing-Logo verwendet werden. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Markenrecht interessiert uns nicht, es tangiert das Urheberrecht nicht. Sonst dürften wir ja kein einziges Auto mehr fotografieren, Leuchtreklame wäre geschützt, fast jeder Alltagsgegenstand. --Pölkkyposkisolisti (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Es geht hier um Markenrecht, unabhängig von der Frage der Schöpfungshöhe, siehe http://www.smilingsun.org/page_4.html Das Smiling Sun Logo ist eine eingetragene Gemeinschaftsmarke, die entsprechendem Markenschutz unterliegt. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Permission was only given for the original. Using parts / changes of the original is expressly forbidden. Even the German original is not suitable for Commons:
- http://smilingsun.org/page_3.html - Licensing
- http://smilingsun.org/page_4.html - Protection
- https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/004193091
- https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/009935289
- https://oami.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/trademarks/009936253
- als:Datei:Atomkraft Nein Danke.svg
- de:Datei:Atomkraft Nein Danke.svg
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Smiling Sun - English.jpg --92.226.33.161 08:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Smiling Sun - English.jpg has OTRS permission and {{GFDL}}, so either derivative works are permitted or the OTRS permission is wrong. Danish speaker required to verify the ticket. --Krd 18:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- My passive Danish should be sufficient for that job (but I'd be surprised if they sent the permission in Danish). However, even without looking at the ticket, I can assure you, that OAA Fonden never agrees to any derivative works. That's a core element of their policy. The smiling sun logo may be used only with the slogan "Nuclear Power? No thanks!" and its translations. They never make exceptions to that. (and even though this may sound anti-freedom, they have good reasons: There were times, when the logo was abused in all kinds of ways, such as "Atomkraft? Ja bitte!" stickers.) Also, they have to be that strict in order to uphold their trademark (YMMV, IANAL). --09:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record: You do know that neither of the images can be used on commons if derivative works are prohibited? --Krd 09:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, not sure about that. My understanding is that the license agreement covers the use of the trademark, it does not concern copyright. By implication, the prohibition of derivatives flows from the trademark regulations, not from copyright. At w:Wikipedia:Restricted_materials#Trademarks it does not say, that trademarked logos cannot be used if derivatives are disallowed. I may be totally off the track here. I am not a lawyer, but that would seem like a possible smiling-sun shaped loophole... ;-) It would certainly not be a good thing, if the logo would disappear from Commons altogether, and maybe there is need for additional clarification with OOA Fonden on what can be done to prevent this from happening. Clearly they are open for discussion. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree in "need for additional clarification with OOA Fonden", but I'd like to know first what we currently have in the OTRS ticket, and Goggle translate is not very helpful here. --Krd 10:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- @MGA73: Could you please have a look on this issue? Thank you. --Krd 10:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Whatever the situation with the official smiling sun logo, this derivative here is clearly in violation of the trademark and thus should be deleted. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, not sure about that. My understanding is that the license agreement covers the use of the trademark, it does not concern copyright. By implication, the prohibition of derivatives flows from the trademark regulations, not from copyright. At w:Wikipedia:Restricted_materials#Trademarks it does not say, that trademarked logos cannot be used if derivatives are disallowed. I may be totally off the track here. I am not a lawyer, but that would seem like a possible smiling-sun shaped loophole... ;-) It would certainly not be a good thing, if the logo would disappear from Commons altogether, and maybe there is need for additional clarification with OOA Fonden on what can be done to prevent this from happening. Clearly they are open for discussion. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just for the record: You do know that neither of the images can be used on commons if derivative works are prohibited? --Krd 09:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I was contactet by a Copyright Consultant from The OOA Foundation in 2011. They wanted to use the logo on the Danish Wikipedia. I told that we needed them to give a permission like on Commons:E-mail-skabeloner/Eksempler (a Danish version of Commons:Email_templates).
- OOA then had some legal questions about what it would mean if they gave a formal permission and other questions. I told them that there is different kinds of protection (copyright and trademark) and referred to the example on Commons:Non-copyright restrictions where it is explaind that apples may not be copyrighted but trademark etc. may prevent others from sell computers with apples on. Further I told them that if they accepted to release the logo under a free license then commercial use would be possible with proper attribution but they would still be protected by the trademark law if the logo was properly registered. Finally I told them that they should seek legal assistance before they decided.
- They replied that they fully understood the difference between copyright protection and trademark but they had a question about if GFDL could be used for works that is not text.
- I told them that GFDL could be used for images and GFDL required that the GFDL license should be printed in full if someone wanted to use the logo on a t-shirt.
- OOA replyed that OOA would like the logo to be used in the article and that they agree to the GFDL license.
- They note the following:
- they still have the copyright to the work
- that they keep the right to be attributed
- they keep the right to take steps agains persons who use the work in a (danish word "injurierepådragende") way that is Libel or Defamation (I do not know the exact word in English. But if I say "Jimbo has robbed a bank" and I do not have proof for that then Jumbo could sue me for "injurier")
- they keep the right to take steps agains persons who use the work in violation of trademark etc.
- I do not think that these terms are a violation of Commons license policy etc. --MGA73 (talk) 18:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, MGA73 for your work. In my understanding this has been a chain of misunderstandings. The OOA as freedom loving persons thought a free licence could be good and therefore said "Yes, if ..." But the part after "if" meant that GFDL (or CC-BY-SA) can NOT be used:
- NO copyright anymore
- NO right to prohibit *any* derivative use, even pro-nuclear uses
- NO right to prohibit commercial use.
- For example look at the Wikipedia logos: they are all strictly copyrighted + TM and NOT under a free licence. So as the OOA should have said only the part after "if", the OTRS reviewers should not have accepted this as a full "yes". In my eyes we don't have a valid permission and so we have to Delete --user.js (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- PS. the Smiling Sun logo can and will still be used in the Wiki articles, because the local language version have various other possibillities of licencing: en:File:Englishsm.png, fr:Fichier:Nucleaire.jpg, (:de: see IP above), ... --user.js (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- @ user.js are you saying that if someone release a file under a free license then they do not have the copyright to the file any more? In my understanding you still have the copyright but you have allowed others to use the file under specific terms. So the part where they say that they want to keep the copyright is not a problem imho.
- I do not think that the terms in the OTRS prohibit any use or commercial use. They just say that they still have TM and that they want to keep the right to sue anyone who uses the logo in an illegal way. --MGA73 (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- PS. the Smiling Sun logo can and will still be used in the Wiki articles, because the local language version have various other possibillities of licencing: en:File:Englishsm.png, fr:Fichier:Nucleaire.jpg, (:de: see IP above), ... --user.js (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, MGA73 for your work. In my understanding this has been a chain of misunderstandings. The OOA as freedom loving persons thought a free licence could be good and therefore said "Yes, if ..." But the part after "if" meant that GFDL (or CC-BY-SA) can NOT be used:
- Comment I have just recieved a new mail from OOA. They have some concerns about GFDL. I will forward it to OTRS. Some of the text is in German and some is in Danish. It is a long mail so it will take some time to read it. Feel free to have a look. --MGA73 (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have now reviewed all the mails again and in mail 8 in the OTRS where OOA gives the permission they say that they would like to see the logo on the Danish Wikipedia and later in the mail that they choose GFDL. Depending on how you read it you could perhaps argue that the permission is a "for Wikipedia" and therefore not a good permission. I did not read it that way and it is not mentioned in the part where they mention the terms for the use of the logo (the 4 dots above).
IANL so I do not know how it would end if the things end in a court. I also do not know how WMF would decide if the permission was in English so they could read it. --MGA73 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I have also reviewed the mails, and agree with MGA73's assessment. - Kaare (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP - questionable OTRS/copyright status. INeverCry 19:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
File restored, after Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Smiling Sun was kept. --h-stt !? 14:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
