Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2014/08/29
 |
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}
Files uploaded by Picanteria karol (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertising.
- File:Pequeo 01.jpg
- File:Nuestros comensales.jpg
- File:Sala de produccion saludablle.jpg
- File:Mision de karol.jpg
- File:Karol mision.jpg
- File:Tacu tacu.jpg
- File:Arroz con pato tradicional.jpg
- File:Logonegro 200.gif
Juggler2005 (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
And again advertising. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Picanteria karol, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arroz con pato 02.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cuy frito.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Arroz con pollo 02.jpg.
Juggler2005 (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Advertising.
Juggler2005 (talk) 10:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, I deleted karol's other advertizing also and blocked him/her for a week, because (s)he was warned in the past. Taivo (talk) 11:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Picanteria karol (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advertising.
Juggler2005 (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deleted: blatantly out of scope. Natuur12 (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
derivative work 37.5.3.179 07:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: by User:Russavia. JuTa 21:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commons aare not wikipedia, out of project scope, user has been removed twice speedt deletion rewust Motopark (talk) 10:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Krd. JuTa 21:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Keep The Flickr release is fine and this has use to illustrate kissing, love, romance, couples, ... --Fæ (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- We've got lots of higher quality images for these topics. This is just a low-quality holiday photograph, like many others. BrightRaven (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Russavia. JuTa 21:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:KB-29P trailing refueling boom.jpg repeated Petebutt (talk) 12:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Well, besides mixing the suffix letter J/P, the correct tag would be "duplicate". I would not care which file would be deleted, my file is older, but with a wrong suffix letter.Cobatfor (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted through duplicate process — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Fry1989 eh? 21:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as fair use Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
exagerately blurry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coentor (talk • contribs) 2014-08-28T13:44:26 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GilboNormand (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a repository of personal or resumé-like pictures. These are out of scope, as the uploader is not a relevant subject and his pictures cannot be used with any educational purpose.
- File:NormandGuilbault dhoti.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault coordo2 2.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault DiSTI-1.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault coordo2.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault coordo1.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault hiver.jpg
- File:NormandGuilbault.jpg
Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 06:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete The uploader claimed always to be the copyright holder. He is himself on the photos, but they are not selfies. Probably they are copyright violations. And out of scope also. Taivo (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted work Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted work Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted work Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted work Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too simple to meet the Treshold of originality. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous copyvio from source cited. SummerPhD (talk) 00:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous copyvio from source cited. SummerPhD (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous copyvio from source cited. SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unambiguous copyvio from source cited. SummerPhD (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Seems to be spam Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
File is apparently a joke file (and crude humor, too) and is not educationally useful. Brownie Charles (talk) 03:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The uploader "Akashdp619" appears to be the person in the image as the image title says, "Akash Deep at Red Fort" (the person in the image). Copyright holder is the one, who clicked the image, not one who appears in the image. The image may also be out of commons scope. The uploader has tried to create a non-notable article (autobiography) on English Wikipedia, en:Akash deep (link may go red sometime very soon, as it currently is tagged for speedy deletion.). Anupmehra -Let's talk! 03:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement. Nigel 03:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement. Nigel 03:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Advertisement. Nigel 03:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This scupture was installed in 2002, see [1]. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This scupture was installed in 2002, see [2]. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in the United States. This scupture was first started in 1987, see [3]. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Consent issues CFCF (talk) 07:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
personal page, cleaning up my pages and this page is no longer needed Evan-Amos (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment: For non-media pages like your Sandbox, please use {{Speedy}} instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The original uploader in Chinese Wikipedia (Evo101469) has a long history of copyright violating there. Due to lacking of EXIF and how, when, where the photo was taken to prove the authentication. It's logical to suspect this might be a copyright violation. Jeffrey "Taiwania" Jhang (Chat) 07:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files in Category:Michael Jordan
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the source country.
- File:Message and handprints of Michael Jordan in Mitake Park.jpg
- File:Michael Jordan bronze statue United Center Chicago.jpg
- File:Monumento a Michael Jordan.JPG
Sealle (talk) 08:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Not released with free license: http://proxy.handle.net/10648/aa09321c-d0b4-102d-bcf8-003048976d84 Tekstman (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
It's unclear who is Ryza Jane and why it should be PD Sanandros (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
no description, Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 09:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Unusable personal artwork. Out of scope. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Useless file. Stuchka (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No proof of license Ariam (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Looks like a scanned photo so casts doubt on the author. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio from Www.sitac.net Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 09:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Logo, copyvio Sitac.net, should be placed on Wikipedia.fr Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 09:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No metadata, seems to be stollen from somewhere on the Internet Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 09:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Stollen from the user : http://www.lineoz.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=330133#p330133 Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.midilibre.fr/2012/04/05/beausejour-parmi-les-meilleurs-lycees-audois,482009.php Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.clg-hugo-narbonne.ac-montpellier.fr/public/v2/ Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://services.legrandnarbonne.com/l-enseignement-superieur-et-la-formation-en-grand-narbonne/176-l-enseignement-superieur-a-narbonne.html Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.archicontemporaine.org/RMA/p-7-Liste.htm?&tri=2&id=7&page=106 Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.epl.carcassonne.educagri.fr/le-lycee-professionnel-agricole-martin-luther-king-narbonne.html Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.lindependant.fr/2011/07/21/vers-500-eleves-de-moins-au-lycee-eiffel,43767.php Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.lindependant.fr/2011/07/21/vers-500-eleves-de-moins-au-lycee-eiffel,43767.php Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.lindependant.fr/2011/07/21/vers-500-eleves-de-moins-au-lycee-eiffel,43767.php Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.midilibre.fr/2012/10/13/bouchons-montpellier-6e-ville-de-france-la-plus-encombree,577503.php Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.institutionsevigne.net/ Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Clearly not own work Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo. Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted logo. Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyvio : http://www.panoramio.com/photo/82716773 Kyah117 [Let's talk about it!] 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete: the uploader removed the no-permission template I added but has provided no verification the the permission as claimed. The source provided does not link to the image, so effectively it is not sourced. Without a clear free licence or OTRS ticket it should be deleted. Ww2censor (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:49, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please delete this picture, I uploaded this pic and I'm sure this pic wasn't mine. Beyoncetan (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded this pic and I want to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beyoncetan (talk • contribs) 2014-08-29T10:55:05 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete: I doubt the uploader, who claims this as their own work, is the author of the logo design. The organisation was founded in 1946 so under Guatemalan law 75 years pma applies.This design is only 70 years old and it appears to still be under copyright per http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127668 Ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ABDULYUVRAJ (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probably derivative work of non-free images.
Juggler2005 (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Probably not own work but a screenshot out of a commercial TV programm and therefore copyrighted, no indication of permission or affiliation of the uploader to the producing company. Rudolph Buch (talk) 11:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raul Casillas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promo.
Juggler2005 (talk) 11:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The fog makes this photograph impossible to use: its subject is not visible. BrightRaven (talk) 11:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- delete if the fog were even a little less thick, the image could be an attractive view of a temple. its too distracting to not be able to make out the structure. wont work as an example of what subject looks like in fog, cause you cant make it out.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- delete without knowning more, this image is of no educational use as is, only personal.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Juggler2005 (talk) 12:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Undescribed bag of something. no perceivable educational value. Orphaned Richard Avery (talk) 13:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There seems to be a copyright symbol in the lower left corner. Richard Avery (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Yes, likely a scan or derivative of copyrighted work. Next time, just use {{Copyvio}} template. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad colors after decoding Jerzystrzelecki (talk) 13:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The copypasted e-mail in the description mentions a release of the image "voor gebruik op de door u genoemde link. (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/)" (roughly translated into English: "for use on the mentioned link. (http://nl.wikipedia.org)"). Though it is mentioned the person is releasing the image under the GFDL, it is unclear, taking into account the first part of the permission, if permission is granted to use the image outside of the Dutch Wikipedia. Woodcutterty (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
useless without a description
37.5.3.179 14:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Can't find the image under a free license at the given source. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Questa foto l'ho scattata io con la macchina fotografica non l'ho presa da intenet GalaxyM (talk) 00:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope: Excluded educational content includes "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Replaced in all instances by the correct and better File:Rhesus Macaque area.png. Reading the description on the English WP, the range shown here is wrong. I think it is better not to keep a misleading file, when a better one exists. Yann (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Also nominated:
Text only, out of scope. Likely copyright violation because it is the Spanish/Portugese version of the liner notes of Genesis 1970–1975. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I want to delete these and other files, but I don't know how to. Please, instruct me on how to do it, then I'll do it myself... Just to make it clear, there's no violation of copyright because one of the images is the listing of songs from the Genesis box and the other contains a description of it written by me, not copied from the liner notes of the box (and it's Portuguese, not Spanish). Thank you. Clausgroi (talk) 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary sculpture. No FoP for sculptures in Russia. A.Savin 16:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary sculpture. No FoP for sculptures in Russia. A.Savin 16:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary sculpture. No FoP for sculptures in Russia. A.Savin 16:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Derivative of contemporary sculpture. No FoP for sculptures in Russia. A.Savin 16:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Low res, available on external websites, probably stolen. A.Savin 16:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unusable poor quality image: blurry, fuzzy. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolution, lack of metadata and the uploader's extensive history of uploading copyright violations with false source, authorship and copyright claims in spite of numerous warnings.
- File:Bambalapitiya tower.png
- File:Iceland towers 1 and 2.jpg
- File:Hilton Hotel Colombo.png
- File:Emperor Picture 2.png
- File:110 Parliament Road.png
- File:Empire tower 1 and 2.jpg
- File:Hilton Residencies.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
As per Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Sri_Lanka
File:Colombo city view from Kingsbury Sky bar.jpgpanorama viewFile:Lotus tower stage 1.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 2.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 3.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 4.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 5.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 6.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus Tower Stage 7.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus tower stage 8.jpgtower under constructionFile:Lotus tower stage 10.jpgtower under construction- File:Iceland Residencies Colombo.jpg
- File:HNB Tower Union Place.jpg
File:World Trade Center Colombo and BOC.jpgpanorama viewFile:Colombo city @ Day.jpgpanorama view- File:Bambalapitiya Tower Building.jpg
File:Colombo City @ Night.jpgpanorama viewFile:Crescat Residencies towers.jpgpanorama view- File:Building 114.jpg
File:Building 113.jpgunder constructionFile:Building 112.jpgno building.- File:Building 111.jpg
File:Building 110.jpgobject not visible.- File:Building 109.jpg
- File:Building 108.jpg
- File:Building 107.jpg
- File:Building 106.jpg
- File:Building 105.jpg
- File:Building 104.jpg
- File:Building 103.jpg
- File:Building 102.jpg
AntanO 19:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, per nomination, except strike outs.Wdwd (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
violation des droits de l'auteur M.a.kacef (talk) 16:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
no permission 37.5.3.179 16:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable band, unused vanity photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Either unused personal artwork, or copyrighted art of a cover sleeve. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Unused and unusable personal artwork, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcelo J.Milczarek (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional product pictures. Not the users works.
For example: File:CRF450R.jpg taken from motocrossactionmag.com. --LordOider (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- File:Crf 450x..jpg
- File:Crf 450x.jpg
- File:Crf 250x.jpg
- File:CRF450R.jpg
- File:CRF450R 2015.jpg
- File:Yz 450f..jpg
- File:Ttr 230.jpg
- File:Crf 230ff.jpg
- File:CRF 230.jpg
- File:CRF 230F.jpg
- File:CRF 250R.jpg
- File:450xx.jpg
- File:450x.jpg
- File:250x.jpg
- File:250xx.jpg
- File:450rr.jpg
- File:250RR.jpg
- File:450r.jpg
- File:Ttr-230-gd.jpg
- File:Wr250.jpg
- File:Wr 250f.jpg
- File:Yz 450f.jpg
- File:YZ 250F..jpg
- File:Yz 450 f.jpg
- File:YZ 250F-2015.jpg
LordOider (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bad Quality Flyingbird741 (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing wrong with the quality. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Good quality... but, scope? COM:PORN and no description, then, Delete. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- The standard is: "Low-quality pornographic images that do not contribute anything educationally useful to our existing collection of images are not needed on the Commons." So: nothing wrong with the quality and I didn't find an equal file in Commons. (But I didn't spend much time for searching, that's true.)--Stunteltje (talk) 05:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Comment The author of this request is the uploader of this file. Isn’t « uploader requested deletion of a recently unused file » enough to delete ?
- But the uploader doesn't seems to be the author since we can find (vie Google Image or TineEye) this photo everywhere on the net. Apparently, it seems to be coming from a porn movie with paid actors.
- Probably copyvio, so Delete.
- Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
- This is a correct reason indeed, after all. --Stunteltje (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
copyright volaghe Meysam (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
copyright volaghe Meysam (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
unused private snapshot - out of scope. JuTa 18:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by NYC JD (talk • contribs) 2014-08-27T19:04:06 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bad identification, replaced by a better File:Centranthe rouge-Centranthus ruber-Calvisson-20140805.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvillafruela (talk • contribs) 2014-08-29T16:24:46 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Bogus authorship claims and PD rationale. This is obviously not a selfie, and there's no evidence to suggest that this photo was actually created by an officer or employee of the US Federal Government as part of their official duties. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- This also applies to File:Senator Mccain and General Idris.png. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Angle and wardrobe very similar to shots on http://chennaionline.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred the Oyster (talk • contribs) 2014-08-29T11:49:27 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Not useful, not in use, lacking description David Condrey (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
not in use, irrelevant to the subject (X-Games) David Condrey (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to someone's baby shower, not in scope Brainy J (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file serves no purpose as all information presented is better presented in textual form. CombatWombat42 (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Most people on the internet don't much of a appreciate going through whole of the description. So it's fr them who just want to know the major points on a glance. The family trees look readable & more clear when they are shown via graphical or Imagery form. So please don't delete it. The Lineage is of "THE MOST REVERED SAINT OF ISLAM".
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 02:02, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Personal page, no longer needed Evan-Amos (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Said Sohrab Khan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, not in use personal pictures.
- File:Said Sohrab Khaann.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Khaan.jpg
- File:Said Sohrab Khana.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Khann.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Khaaan.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Kha.jpg
- File:Said Sohrab K.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Kh.jpg
- File:Said Sohrab.JPG
- File:Said Sohrab Khan.JPG
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, not in use personal pictures.
- File:Sajiko Natsu slim body.jpg
- File:Sajiko Natsu 32 years old.JPG
- File:Sajiko Natsu leopard bikiny cute.JPG
- File:Sajiko Natsu leopard bikiny.JPG
- File:Sajiko Natsu duck.jpg
- File:Sajiko Natsu.JPG
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Out of scope, low quality. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mdsaqlainrahi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, not in use personal pictures.
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (85).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (22).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (17).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (13).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (16).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (12).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (5).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (4).jpg
- File:Saqlain Rahi Khan (3).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
self promotion, not useful David Condrey (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chelsea Shimirwa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, not in use personal pictures.
- File:SPM A0626.jpg
- File:SPM A0625.jpg
- File:SPM A0624.jpg
- File:SPM A0623.jpg
- File:SPM A0621.jpg
- File:SPM A0620.jpg
- File:Lol desx on oublie k on est.jpg
- File:Peace or violence.jpg
- File:Gt sm swagg.jpg
- File:Life is not that easy.jpg
- File:Haha lol.jpg
- File:SWAGG.jpg
- File:Let me be who i want to be.jpg
- File:R.I.P Janvière.jpg
- File:Seul un petit sourir est mon bonheur.png
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Copie de http://pasidupes.blogspot.fr/2013/07/francois-hollande-president-des.html / copy of http://pasidupes.blogspot.fr/2013/07/francois-hollande-president-des.html Habertix (talk) 22:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I doubt the uploader holds the copyright to all of the images. One of them can be found here, for example. rimshottalk 23:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cover images are copyrighted and probably not de minimis. rimshottalk 23:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Image File:KB-29M Air Refueling.jpg repeated Petebutt (talk) 12:18, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep please: This file has been transfered before the second file that you indicated. This file is used in 4 articles and the second file in only one; therefore, the article that the second file is used must be dited to link to this file, and the the second file should be speedelly deleted, and then request the renaming this file to the other name. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Away tou go then!--Petebutt (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- All done this image is no longer used any where despite the list on the page--Petebutt (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate/ Not in use. Geagea (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
duplicates Category:Railway bridges -- 65.94.169.222 08:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- If possible, this should be a categoryredirect to the proper category, after deletion. -- 65.94.169.222 08:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree... delete this category and move the two pics into the other.Onel5969 (talk) 15:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: redirected Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
wrong file uploaded Qczi (talk) 14:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Leuk ter illustratie in de Kroeg, maar samplen is niet toegestaan helaas. Blijft met dit template echter nog wel 7 dagen staan. Grashoofd (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Mooi :) Joepnl (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note for admin: Used to illustrate something in our Kroeg), but the music is copyrighted. May be deleted after the 7 days. Grashoofd (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Can somone tell me how is that PD 70 years after death when there is no author? Sanandros (talk) 09:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete: It clearly appears this 1941 image should either be tagged {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} or {{Anonymous-EU}} if no author is known. Ww2censor (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if u want to delete or keep the pic, but never the less, if it was published in the museum maybe there is written something about an author.--Sanandros (talk) 22:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: I would prefer to keep the image but it needs to be licenced dfferently if it really is an anonymous image, otherwise it should be deleted. The current licence is likely false but needs some work research to determine if one of the licences I suggested is appropriate. Ww2censor (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- And who is now going to the museum?--Sanandros (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Who needs to go to the museum? The internet exists, so research can be done from home too! Ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I took this photo at the museum. I've checked with the original on my hard disk, and there is no mentioning of any author. In my opinion, this is an anonymous image. JoJan (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- @JoJan: So do you not think one of the licences I mentioned is more appropriate? Was they a reason you chose the one you did? Ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have no objection against the use of a better license. JoJan (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- @JoJan: So do you not think one of the licences I mentioned is more appropriate? Was they a reason you chose the one you did? Ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- I took this photo at the museum. I've checked with the original on my hard disk, and there is no mentioning of any author. In my opinion, this is an anonymous image. JoJan (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Who needs to go to the museum? The internet exists, so research can be done from home too! Ww2censor (talk) 13:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- And who is now going to the museum?--Sanandros (talk) 11:39, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- @Sanandros: I would prefer to keep the image but it needs to be licenced dfferently if it really is an anonymous image, otherwise it should be deleted. The current licence is likely false but needs some work research to determine if one of the licences I suggested is appropriate. Ww2censor (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{Anonymous-EU}} is fine for me. Yann (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
repetitivo 179.99.208.241 13:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
写真のタイトルを間違えて横行したため Andshin (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. In use. Yann (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
de:Inferno Ragazzi speedy deletion: no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio. Yann (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 109.252.194.195 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: COM:FOP#Turkmenistan: non-free building (2000s). Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO Com:DM. Not much building to see, some generic stairs and seats. That's all. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: De minimis. Yann (talk) 11:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Clear copyright violation from source cited. SummerPhD (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: The logo is too simple to meet the Treshold of originality, and therefore applies {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: {{PD-Textlogo}}. Yann (talk) 11:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
repetitive of File:Owner_of_the_Wall_of_Death,_in_his_family_for_80_years._(3556603969).jpg David Condrey (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Speedy keep please: Not duplicated, there are two different perssons in both pictures, and this file is currently in use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, marked it not because its a duplicate, but because its redundant.. duplicate context. What's the value of having both images? David Condrey (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo Pierre Rudloff (talk) 10:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: Too simple to meet the Treshold of originality. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly above com:TOO Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Euro_coin_common_face_2 130.79.192.4 10:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
In the source, I see no indication that the original painting is from the 17th-century (and it has been questioned since 2009 as indicated in the talkpage). The file is also significantly altered from the the original as given in the source; so even if it could be established that the original is in fact a 17th-century painting, the derivative would still not be suitable without a proper license. --Cold Season (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: I agree. Natuur12 (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Авторство сомнительно, см. подпись на фотографии Dogad75 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Почему? Я не вижу никакой подписи. Куда надо смотреть?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- angel-for-a-dreamer, в верхнем левом углу на фото. Фото, похоже, автора с профиля http://photo.qip.ru/users/angel-for-a-dreamer.fotoplenka/. Нет подтверждения авторства и разрешения на публикацию данного файла под свободными лицензиями. --Dogad75 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Watermarked; no source; no evidence of permission Ymblanter (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Contemporary architecture, no FoP in Mongolia. A.Savin 18:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Undeleted Mongolia now has FOP for buildings. Abzeronow (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Contemporary architecture, no FoP in Mongolia. A.Savin 19:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Undeleted There is FOP in Mongolia now for buildings. This is a collage of buildings, needs a more detailed source. Abzeronow (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, but this image contains Pantone Matching System ink mixing formulas, which are copyrighted. 84.61.136.79 08:03, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Kept, I do not believe, that they are copyrighted. Maybe they are trademarked, but this is not the same. They seem to me ineligible for copyright protection due to simplicity. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Not the uploaders own work, see here. The file is not pd in The Netherlands yet either. Natuur12 (talk) 11:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- That site shows this image on an old postcard, which at the back has a copyright statement. It is not clear if copyright status has changed since then. It could well be that images from this photographer were donated to the KB: the copyright: label shown on that site indicates that further information can be obtained from the Koninklijke Bibliotheek. User:Happytravels has requested further information from the KB about the copyright status of the image, so I think we should wait for their response before taking further action. Rgds, Trewal (talk) 12:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- We need evidence that the photographer is not the copyrightholder. Natuur12 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. That's why there is a request sent to the KB, to provide evidence. Rgds, Trewal (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- I got an answer from the Dutch Royal Library (Koninklijke Bibliotheek, or in short KB). The file is in the Netherlands still under copyright restrictions. For publishing the picture, permission is needed from the copyright holder, which is not the KB. The picture is not the uploaders own work. Happytravels (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
- I agree. That's why there is a request sent to the KB, to provide evidence. Rgds, Trewal (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- We need evidence that the photographer is not the copyrightholder. Natuur12 (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Jan Weijers uploaded the photo into nl.wiki and claimed to be copyright holder. His claim was based on the fact that he owned the photo, although he was not the original photographer. Actually owning a photo does not make a copyright holder and Jan Weijers did not claim, that the photo is in public domain. In such circumstances it is best to delete the photo. Taivo (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
de:Inferno Ragazzi speedy deletion: no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this was the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
The green sectors are in wrong order. 84.61.136.79 17:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, yes, they are. Taivo (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Semantic web stack.svg is more accurate copy Nashev (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, this was the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Photograph of File:Joseph Savory Vanity Fair 1890-11-01.jpg The Theosophist (talk) 21:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, Commons does not need photo of drawing, if there is drawing itself. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Erdoğan (2014 cumhurbaşkanlığı seçim logosu).png — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobija (talk • contribs) 2014-08-28T18:37:57 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted, licence "does not surpass threshold of originality" is clearly wrong. I delete both files. Taivo (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Arvin2 wrote: "i think this isn't a photograph, but a captured image of the film. films shown before 1953 in Japan are PD, but this film was shown in 1954." Jarekt (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Where is the proof that this is a frame from the film and not a publicity shot? Doesn't the one making the claim need to back that up with proof? I could make random claims about anything, no? Nesnad (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted, actually no source. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
- This NOT "laws; regulations; resolutions, decisions and orders of state organs; other documents of legislative, administrative and judicial nature; and their official translations" shizhao (talk) 01:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- KeepThis file belongs to the laws People's Republic of China, regulations, resolutions or national government agencies derivative works published documents belonging to the public domain.Transformers 23 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- KeepKeep files
- People's Republic of China public security industry standards (GA36-2007) is People's Republic of China public security of the Ministry of public security published industry standards, which belongs to the mandatory standard within the industry, not in the ordinary sense of the industry standard, its file upload of pictures and its subsidiary belonging to the principle of fair use, ' editors to identify vigorously ';
- Industry standard is based on the People's Republic of China standardization law provisions is determined by the People's Republic of China by the competent ministries, commissions (Council) approved the release, unified within the criteria used in this sector, in a strict sense, are divided into General and special. Generalized of standardization legal is refers to adjustment involving related standardization of social relations and social order of legal specification of sum, it including standardization method and and of phase supporting of the regulations and regulations; narrowly of standardization legal, that is refers to dated December 29, 1988 National Standing Committee issued of People's Republic of China standardization method, so by Government related sector issued or issued of industry standard belongs to its legal regulations of extends works;
- Is the industry norm for the resolutions, decisions and orders of State organs and other documents of legislative, administrative or judicial nature and its subsidiary a derivative work is not subject to the People's Republic of China copyright law article fifth paragraph, so industry standards do not involve copyright;
- According to the People's Republic of China copyright law provisions of the seventh paragraph of the 22nd article, upload several files are in line with its definition, and its file attached related rights were fully guaranteed.
TVBS588 (talk) 02:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
- 标准受到版权保护，见[4]--shizhao (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep理据：
- 中华人民共和国公共安全行业标准〔GA36-2007〕为中华人民共和国公安部发布的公共安全行业标准，属于行业内强制性标准，非普通意义上的行业标准，其文件及其附属图片的上传属于合理使用之原则，请相关编辑者正视并认真辨识；
- 行业标准是根据《中华人民共和国标准化法》的规定，是由中华人民共和国各主管部、委（局）批准发布，在该部门范围内统一使用的标准，从严格意义上讲，有广义和狭义之分。广义的标准化法律是指调整涉及有关标准化的社会关系和社会秩序的法律规范的总和，它包括《标准化法》以及与之相配套的各项法规和规章；狭义的标准化法律，即是指1988年12月29日全国人大常委会颁布的《中华人民共和国标准化法》，故由政府相关部门核发或颁布的行业标准属于其法律法规的延伸著作；
- 行业标准是国家机关的决议、决定、命令和其他具有立法、行政、司法性质的文件及其附属衍生著作，其不适用《中华人民共和国著作权法》第五条之第一款，故行业标准不涉及著作权；
- 亦根据《中华人民共和国著作权法》第二十二条之第七款之规定，所上传的这几个文件均符合其定义，并充分保障了其文件附属的相关权利。
Kept: per discussion Krd 12:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Germany for images taken from non public ways, i.e. sky 93.219.171.202 22:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Anonym! Interessant!? Bitte Rechtsgrundlage nennen! --Wolkenkratzer (talk) 09:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Die Panoramafreiheit gilt nach Ansicht von Experten nicht für Luftaufnahmen, gerne auch hier diskutieren: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Diskussion:Bildrechte#Luftaufnahmen -- 93.219.171.202 19:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
The whole variety of photographs contained in Category:Aerial photographs of buildings (see especially most images in Category:Projekt Heißluftballon) shows that currently Commons does not require the permission of the "author" of the work in case of aerial photographs. An additional question would be to what extent buildings are copyrighted works. Is the permission of the owner or of the architect of the specific building required? Is it possible to say that aerial photographs which do show a building only in low resolution so that architectural details cannot be identified are allowed but not photographs in a very high resolution? I think this is not an issue on which Commons does have definite answers yet and so far it is not common for these kinds of files to be deleted on a regular scale.--Leit (talk) 22:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep Die Panoramafreiheit betrifft auch diese Luftaufnahme.
Die beiden Aussagen „No freedom of panorama in Germany for images taken from non public ways, i.e. sky“ und „Die Panoramafreiheit gilt nach Ansicht von Experten nicht für Luftaufnahmen“ sind in diesen pauschalen Formen sachlich falsch und unbelegt.
Ein Experte (Wolfgang Rau, Rechtsanwalt, Vizepräsident und Justitziar des Deutschen Verbandes für Fotografie e. V.) zum Thema: „Heute dürfen Luftaufnahmen, sofern sie nicht [...] urheberrechtlich geschützte Objekte abbilden, genehmigungsfrei erstellt und verwertet werden. Auch hier gibt es zwei Ausnahmen: die eine bezieht sich [...] auf militärische Anlagen (zum Beispiel Militärflughäfen, Marinestützpunkte, Übungsgelände), die nach § 109g Abs. 2 StGB nur dann fotografiert werden dürfen, wenn damit die Sicherheit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und die Schlagkraft der Truppe nicht beeinträchtigt werden. [...] Die andere Ausnahme bezieht sich [...] auf den Eingriff in die Privatsphäre. Ist Privatbesitz gegen Einblicke von ebener Erde geschützt, dann ist es natürlich insbesondere verboten, mithilfe von Hubschraubern, Ballons oder unbemannten Fluggeräten Aufnahmen von fremdem Besitz darzustellen, wenn der jeweilige Eigentümer und Besitzer durch die Einfriedung gerade signalisiert hat, dass er von fremden Blicken unbehelligt bleiben möchte. Solche Fälle dürften sich jedoch im Bereich der Presse, insbesondere der Regenbogenpresse, abspielen (Stichwort: Paparazzi).“ Zitiert aus Wolfgang Rau: Recht für Fotografen. Der Ratgeber für die fotografische Praxis. Galileo Press, Bonn 2013, 2. Auflage, ISBN 978-3-8362-2580-9, S. 112f. Die Auslassungen beziehen sich auf Querverweise innerhalb des Buches.
Da im vorliegenden Fall weder eine militärische Anlage dargestellt wird, noch ein Eingriff in die Privatsphäre vorliegt, ist die Luftaufnahme zulässig. Insbesondere auch, weil es sich hier um eine Übersichtsaufnahme handelt, die keine Details einer Privatsphäre zum Gegenstand hat. Auch wenn das Thema „Bildrechte“ zuweilen komplex sein mag – im vorliegenden Fall ist die Rechtslage unstrittig. --Hasenläufer (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- Belege hatte ich in der Diskussion angegeben, die auch immer noch offen ist: hier. -- 93.219.134.68 08:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Das oben genannte Zitat "heute dürfen Luftaufnahmen" bezieht sich auf die generelle Genehmigungspflicht für Luftaufnahmen, die bis 1990 bestand, und ist hier nicht hilfreich. Wichtig ist das "sofern sie nicht [...] urheberrechtlich geschützte Objekte abbilden", denn die Panoramafreiheit gilt nicht für Luftaufnahmen.
- Hier wäre zu klären, ob COM:DM zutrifft. Ich tendiere zu nein, also Delete. --Krd 08:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: It is clear that FOP does not extend to aerial images. The quote above,
- "Heute dürfen Luftaufnahmen, sofern sie nicht [...] urheberrechtlich geschützte Objekte abbilden, genehmigungsfrei erstellt und verwertet werden."
is very clear -- we have here a reproduction of a copyrighted object. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Delete: A picture on public display is still copyright to someone unless it is specifically known to be freely licenced. This derivative work was likely created during the subject term of office which was between 1945 and 1951. However according to Guatemalan law (available at WIPO http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127668 ) it appears that such photos are copyright for 75 years pma, so at best this image is 69 years old but if the publication was later than the creation the copyright start date may be even later (someone who can read Spanish might be able to clarify that for us). Ww2censor (talk) 10:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
- Replay: The image was taken from a portrait made from Dr. Arevalo in 1945 and that is currently on public domain, since it was donated by the government to the Museum of National History of Guatemala. The note in white reads: This image is in the Guatemalan Museum of National History. Since it has been donated to the national museum, I consider this image to be of public domain. --Nerdoguate (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- While you consider the image to be in the public domain, there is no proof that is the case. Unfortunately, making a donation to a museum does not confer any change in the copyright status of the image. That is determined by the law and its relationship to the creator of the image. Has the Guatemalan Museum of National History provided any verification of your claim? If, so please send that to the OTRS Team. Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note left by uploader on file page moved here for consideration of his claim.
- NOTE: According the Guatemalan law in http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=127668 says: 49. The State or its public entities, municipalities, and the universities and other education establishments in the country, enjoy the protection of 75 years granted in this law, but when they are declared new owners of the copyright and they did not use it in a five year period, starting from the moment they got the piece, the work will become public domain. This portrait of Juan Jose Arevalo was donated to the museum in 1960 and has been in public display since.
- But was the copyright to the work given to the museum as well as the physical copy of the work? Giving away the physical work generally does not imply giving away the copyright to the work. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, I read this carefully and we don't actually have any confirmation that the museum was "declared the new owners' of the copyright. Perhaps you should contact the museum and ask for clarification of this point. Ww2censor (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP - questionable copyright status. INeverCry 19:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
