Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/01/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
tyyy.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![80 File:"Roberto Aizenberg. Diálogos con Carlos Barbarito" (Buenos Aires. Klemm, 2001).jpg](#File:"Roberto_Aizenberg._Diálogos_con_Carlos_Barbarito"_(Buenos_Aires._Klemm,_2001).jpg){kind=link}
![81 File:"Дүрия дүние".png](#File:"Дүрия_дүние".png){kind=link}
![90 File:Dan "Da Zvedanja" Haj-Ersan.jpg](#File:Dan_"Da_Zvedanja"_Haj-Ersan.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
Duplication with File:Dubi Gal in Rome, July 2010.JPG and not in use Ldorfman (talk) 00:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: dup matanya • talk 08:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Self-promotional or promotional material out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 12:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably a copyvio, the source is not clear enough to explain the licensing Rodrigolopes (talk) 04:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedied as copyvio. Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Staatssekretär Stephan Kolling.jpg
저작권을 침해했습니다 Soo9819 (talk) 12:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- 저작권을 침해했습니다 121.174.106.148 14:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Logo's and icons from Google are not free to use! See here. And this picture is NOT subject to the threshold of originality! FritsHG Question? 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- What's above TOO in this Logo? Page is missing a trademark warning template but that's all. --Denniss (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Stop these nonsense-full DR.
Keep - clearly below COM:TOO. — Revi 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep It's a simple lower case "g" using Berthold's "Catull" font with a rounded rectangle background. There is no originality whatsoever, there is no customization by Google. It's far too simple for any court in the world to allow its copyright status. As a trademark, yes, as a copyright no. Just because Google says it is and because you agree with them does not make a single difference either to its complexity or its legality. You may have an arguable point with the full Google logo, but not with this simple icon. As regards the background, again, the "shiny" element is a simple technique using a greatly used method which in itself is not original either. I don't know why you have a bee in your bonnet about these icons, but you are undoubdtedy wrong, and so are Google if they purport to have copyrighted this icon. It's far too simple and original. You cannot copyright a single letter of the standard English alphabet. You need to back off and initiate a bout of common-sense. --128.90.102.155 15:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Another nonsense DR by FritsHG. Natuur12 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rassemblement de soutien à Charlie Hebdo - 7 janvier 2015 - Toulon - P1980273.JPG Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rassemblement de soutien à Charlie Hebdo - 7 janvier 2015 - Toulon - P1980271.JPG
Not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Non-admin closure: Withdrawn by the nominator. DLindsley Need something? 16:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free content [1] [2] Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment. It has to be noted the uploader claims to be the original author of the illustration. --Dereckson (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: This sketch is already published and attributed to another illustrator, Francisco Javier Olea. The low resolution and the lack of documentation in the legend don't allow us to trust the uploader to be the author. Dereckson (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The watermark at the bottom left of the image should prove to you that this is not the uploader's original image. DLindsley Need something? 15:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unambiguous copyvios may use {{Copyvio}}. Эlcobbola talk 16:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Non-admin closure: Withdrawn by the nominator. DLindsley Need something? 16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
저작권을 침해했습니다. Soo9819 (talk) 13:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Penjualinaimerah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-sUtlaoVKgZg/VB88dh0wJbI/AAAAAAAAAR4/ksV78OcSaig/w601-h450/DSCN0421.JPG&imgrefurl=https://plus.google.com/111591839614877825889&h=450&w=601&tbnid=gTVukWSObZvnsM&zoom=1&tbnh=194&tbnw=260&usg=__6usHzNr6wj8x7n4tocDe9Jobk-Q=&docid=qnWBnvvpzLUdtM, copyvio Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
wolfram alpha's rights Basvb (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
To be handled in more general request. Basvb (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Low quality image. Not in use anywhere. Probably not suited for general use. Better version available at File:Rembrandt Self-portrait (Mauritshuis).jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: deleted and redirected. Low quality duplicate Jarekt (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rehan Khan2050 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
- File:Rehan-Khan.jpg
- File:Rehan Khan .jpg
- File:REHAN KHAN.jpeg
- File:Rehan khan.jpg
- File:Sonu Khan.jpg
- File:Rehan Khan2050.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted by Alan. Green Giant (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rehan Khan2050 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:Rehan Khan .JPG
- File:Rehan Nikita.jpg
- File:Rehan Khan......JPG
- File:Rehan Khan.JPG
- File:CUTE BOY.JPG
- File:Sapna Khatun.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I will add for deletion all his/her other uploads due to same reason:
- File:Mamsrif Sekh.jpg
- File:Me & my best frienDs.jpg
- File:Rehan, Bishal & Ashok.jpg Taivo (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rehan Khan2050 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope.
- File:History of billionars.jpg
- File:Nikita sharma.jpg
- File:Picnic in Bhatta mela.jpg
- File:Nikita Sharma.jpg
- File:My 3 FrienDs showing a six pack abs.jpg
- File:DarD BoY.jpg
- File:My all frienDs.jpg
- File:Ashok Gupta.jpg
- File:Rahul Sarraf.jpg
- File:My FrienDS.jpg
- File:Rehan Khan.JPG
Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
The drawing (gun and pen) is non-free. [3] Thibaut120094 (talk) 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination The uploader uploaded a new version without the drawing, the first version of the file should be deleted then. Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Non-free elements have been removed. Dereckson (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kaustubh chandra joshi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be replaced by wiki-text and SVG if useful.
- File:Class -11 maths,Chap-3 Trignometric functions.pdf
- File:Class -11 maths,Chap-2 Relation & functions.pdf
- File:Class -11maths,Chap-1 Set Theory.pdf
- File:Class12-maths,Chap-3 Matrices.pdf
- File:Class 12-maths,Chap-2 Trignometric function.pdf
- File:Class 12,maths,Chap-1 Relation & function.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Kaustubh chandra joshi (talk · contribs)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be replaced by wiki-text and SVG if useful.
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.7- Permutation & combination.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.6-Linear inequalities.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.5 -Complex numbers & quadratic equation.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.4-Mathematical induction.pdf
- File:Class-12maths, chap.13 Probability.pdf
- File:Class12 maths, chap.12- Linear progaming.pdf
- File:Class12 maths, chap.11- 3D geomitry.pdf
- File:Class12 maths, chap.10- Vector algebra.pdf
- File:Class-12 maths., chap.-9 Differential equation.pdf
- File:Class-12 maths., chap.8 Application of intigration.pdf
- File:Class12-maths, chap.7 Intigration.pdf
- File:Class12 maths.,chap. 6 Application of derivatives.pdf
- File:Class12 maths, chap.5 Continuity & differentiablity.pdf
- File:Class12-maths, chap.4 -Determinants.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Kaustubh chandra joshi (talk · contribs)
Out of COM:SCOPE: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be replaced by wiki-text and SVG if useful.
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.16- Probability.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.15- Statistics.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.14- Mathematical reasoning.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.13- Limits & derivatives.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.12- 3 Dimentional geomitry.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.11-Conic Sections.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.10 Straight lines.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.9- sequence & series.pdf
- File:Maths.-class11, chap.8 -Binomial theorem.pdf
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rogger Milton Barbosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of official photos and logos.
- File:Uniforme do Esquadrão Tático da Guarda Civil de Limeira.jpg
- File:Uniformes da NAJA - Ações Especiais da Guarda Civil de Limeira.jpg
- File:Brasão da NAJA - Ações Especiais da Guarda Civil de Limeira.jpg
- File:Brasão do Esquadrão Tático da Guarda Civil de Limeira.jpg
- File:Uniformes do Esquadrão Tático da Guarda Civil de Limeira.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- Files uploaded by Rogger Milton Barbosa (talk · contribs)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text document which should be replaced by wiki-tables.
- File:GCM aumenta produtividade com mais flagrantes e nº de presos.jpg
- File:Tabela de ocorrências da GCM de Limeira entre a 2013 e 2014.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
uploader request deletion Gavleson (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:INeverCry. JuTa 12:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Taivo. JuTa 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Не удалось привести файл в порядок, думаю лучше удалить. Хаджимурад (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Оригинал находится в английском викискладе, под таким же названием. Хотел перевести оттуда в общий викисклад, но не получилось. Хаджимурад (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Ellin Beltz. JuTa 12:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The existence of this file is overdue. I declare this on the Rights of the author of this file. Мики32 (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 12:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 2.137.36.148 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivated work of a copyrighted picture, wich is still copyrighted|source=http://www.lepoint.fr/images/2015/01/07/3044983-carteidentite-jpg_2651366.JPG Rama (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I call bullshit, as this photograph comes from an identity card, and was clearly taken by a photo booth. Photo booths are not people and have not legal personality, entailing that they yield no copyright. Hence PD-ineligible. Rama (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- PS: Of course the source image is claimed as copyrighted by a newspaper, which they are free to claim even when it is wrong; newspaper routinely claims to have copyright on Public Domain work or on the work of other people, we just don't have to believe them. Rama (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Question The person (journalist, policieman, ...) who photographed the identity card has copyrights, don't he ? I think that's what 2.137.36.148 actually meant. 62.167.43.167 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There hardly arises new copyright when you take a photograph of an existing photograph without any special edits etc., which seems to be the case here. See Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag and possibly Commons:When to use the PD-scan tag. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- PS: Of course the source image is claimed as copyrighted by a newspaper, which they are free to claim even when it is wrong; newspaper routinely claims to have copyright on Public Domain work or on the work of other people, we just don't have to believe them. Rama (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep with User:Rama.--Kresspahl (talk) 15:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The rationale Automated identity photograph machine, yielding no copyright and the licence {{PD-ineligible}} are nonsense. This photo could be similarly from a photographer and has in any case a copyright. Due to precautionary principle on Commons the photo must be deleted. It is also a violation of the presumptive perpetrator's personality rights. --Ras67 (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- If the photograph was made by a photo booth, then it is not under copryright and is automatically under {{PD-ineligible}}. Now, you can discuss the question of whether it was or not made by a photo booth; I admit that I am not in a position to prove that it is at the moment, but I regard the probability of a human photographer to be sufficiently small to warrant the tag. That is, astronomically small. Rama (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Question Well, but why all images of Photo booth strips and photographs, excepted this one, have a normal licence? --Ras67 (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the same reason that newspapers alledge to holding copyright to historical images, to images taken by animals, or my automated systems, or by you and me. They can say that, but you don't have to believe them because it is inexact or flat wrong. Rama (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I agree with Rama both on the fact that this photograph is higly suceptible to come out of a photo booth (we should try to contact Saïd to confirm this, though) and that no journal has any copyright on the 2D reproduction of an ID card. Totodu74 (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep a formal passphoto is not an artistic work. But the person on the picture has moral rights as Ras67 says, so we should add the tag {Personality rights} --Hannolans (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete unless it's possible to prove that it actually comes from such a photo booth. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 20:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Question A wanted poster including a superior photograph was published on Préfecture de police's Twitter account. Perhaps this is an acceptable replacement? JoshuaKGarner (talk) 21:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. Here is the high res version: http://www.prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/15227/103616/file/Appela%CC%80Te%CC%81moins07012015.pdf --Hannolans (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would be cautious here: documents by the French authorities are not automatically in the Public Domains (indeed they rarely are), and the photographs there could very well have been taken by a human photographer after an arrest. Rama (talk) 06:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good catch. Here is the high res version: http://www.prefecturedepolice.interieur.gouv.fr/content/download/15227/103616/file/Appela%CC%80Te%CC%81moins07012015.pdf --Hannolans (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Rama all the way. MachoCarioca (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obvious delete First of all, the photos taken by photo booth are indeed copyrighted. Pictures taken by accident or animals, not; is different. Anyway, one cannot crop a "PD fragment" from a copyrighted picture, since the protection is for the entire composition, and noone is allowed to crop it unless you are autorized by the autor. I mean, this is a cropped version of a picture of an ID card within a picture in it... which is copyrighted all around the world, and nobody is allowed to crop it to get the "PD fragment". Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 23:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC) PS: 2.137.36.148 was me.
- Two problems here:
- 1) "First of all, the photos taken by photo booth are indeed copyrighted": I just don't think that this is the case. Do you have any element to support your claim?
- 2) "the protection is for the entire composition, and noone is allowed to crop...": the identity card (and thus its photograph) are derivatives of the automated ID photograph; if you remove everything that is not the ID picture you get the ID picture. Another angle on that is that the ID card is not a work of art (given the ID photograph, you have a straightforward algorithm to generate the ID card -- that is the point of the ID card), and the photograph taken in Le Point does not seem to meet even the very low French threshold for an original work either (straightforward photograph of a 2D object, and none of the elaborate lightning, consideration for reflections or for quality that characterise 2D reproductions awarded copyrights (well, "author's rights", to be precise) in France (professional reproductions of paintings, notably). Rama (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment First of all, we cannot assure this pic is made in a photo booth. Besides... I think it's doubtful (at least) saying a photo booth-pic is not copyrighted. Then, every photograph you take, for example, with a webcam would be free of copyright?, because "it was the computer/webcam who took the photo and you only press the key"? It's a long shot, I think. I see no monkeys involved around here, but a human being taking an automatic pic for himself. He inserted the coin, he posed, he decided when the pic would be taken. He did everything. Oh no, the camera device was huge and non-mobile, and the pic is taken with a small time lag since you press the key, so it's a monkey-selfie-pic-case. Bullshit. Nevertheless I think if the original 2D-photo-booth-pic is in public domain, then this cropping too, because it would be a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art. Totemkin (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright stems from originality, for which you have differing thresholds (Germany has a high threshold, France has a low one). Irrespective of philosophical considerations as to who or what is "taking the photograph" when you use the controls of a photo booth, the fact is that the booth is automated: you have no control of composition, lightning, not even the moment of the shot. Without input form the user, the image cannot yield a copyright. Rama (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- A selfie pic taken from a single-lens reflex camera set up in automatic mode and placed over a table with a 15-seconds-lag is free of copyright too? I'll be damned. Said could also have moved the photo booth and placed it in a horizontal position, "changing the lightning and composition". With a crane, of course. Oh, no, it's not the case because the photo booth is heavy and big. A photo booth is nothing but a big-and-not-very-interactive camera, I'd say. Copyright doesn't depend on the devices but in the person who uses them. And a photo booth doesn't decide to take photos by him(it)self. Totemkin (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a theoretical legal framework of copyright and authors' rights, of which laws an jurisprudence are manifestations. If you want to make up legal opinion based on monkeys, cranes and "Copyright doesn't depend on the devices", what can I say, you are entitled to your beliefs. Rama (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Well, Rama, I'm not seeing any legal document here stating photographs made with a photobooth are free of copyright, so you are making your point too, philosophical considerations aside. Totemkin (talk) 14:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is a theoretical legal framework of copyright and authors' rights, of which laws an jurisprudence are manifestations. If you want to make up legal opinion based on monkeys, cranes and "Copyright doesn't depend on the devices", what can I say, you are entitled to your beliefs. Rama (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- A selfie pic taken from a single-lens reflex camera set up in automatic mode and placed over a table with a 15-seconds-lag is free of copyright too? I'll be damned. Said could also have moved the photo booth and placed it in a horizontal position, "changing the lightning and composition". With a crane, of course. Oh, no, it's not the case because the photo booth is heavy and big. A photo booth is nothing but a big-and-not-very-interactive camera, I'd say. Copyright doesn't depend on the devices but in the person who uses them. And a photo booth doesn't decide to take photos by him(it)self. Totemkin (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright stems from originality, for which you have differing thresholds (Germany has a high threshold, France has a low one). Irrespective of philosophical considerations as to who or what is "taking the photograph" when you use the controls of a photo booth, the fact is that the booth is automated: you have no control of composition, lightning, not even the moment of the shot. Without input form the user, the image cannot yield a copyright. Rama (talk) 13:53, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - Neither originality nor imbued with the spirit of its author, which is mandatoy for 'droit d'auteur' protection under the french law, probably taken by an automaton, so it should be public domain. Usage issues should be resolved at wikipedia level and not here on Commons. Esby (talk) 09:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Cette image n'est pas assez originale pour pouvoir prétendre en France à la protection par le droit d'auteur. JÄNNICK Jérémy (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Idem.-- Bertrand GRONDIN
→ (Talk) 13:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC) - Keep Probably legaly wrong but "we are all Charlie". --Madelgarius (talk) 20:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hahahaha, what? Nohomersryan (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It must be proven that this is not copyrightable in order to keep, so far nobody has done that. Further there is no ruling in US courts on whether automated photography is copyrightable or not, leaving photo booths in a gray area. When in doubt, assume copyright. Geogene (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Nobody has proved it is uncopyrighted and we can't just assume it isn't per the guidelines here. It's best to err on the side of caution. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I don't find the argument in favor of keeping convincing at all. Do we have any evidence/guidelines/legal decisions supporting that view? How is a photo booth different from a big bulky camera operating on a timer? Obviously somebody has pressed a delayed shutter button (and it was most likely the depicted person). The person depicted can move/turn their head or do whatever to influence composition and has obviously, well provided their own face to the image. So at the very least an argument can be made that copyright exists and in absence of proof of the opposite the image should be deleted. --DXR (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Here is interesting jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice about portrait photographs, in this it is debated when copyright is applicable http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82078&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=148989 --Hannolans (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Citation of this jurisdiction and the question for us to be answered: In conclusion, it must be stated, first of all, that a portrait photo is afforded copyright protection under Article 6 of Directive 93/98 and of Directive 2006/116 if it is an original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer, which is the case where the photographer leaves his mark by using the available formative freedom of portrait photography.--Hannolans (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- For 'unoriginal' photographs still national and moral rights are relevant. Restrictions ofpersonality rights should be evaluated. --Hannolans (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure if I should post this long post here in between, but below I listed the aspects mentioned in the case of the European Court a comparible case by the way, a must read) to determine if it is an original work or free of copyright according to the European Court of Justice and the Berne convention. Those are the explicit aspects mentioned (not a finite list):
- * the angle
- * the position
- * the facial expression of the person portrayed
- * the background
- * the sharpness
- * the light/lighting
I compared them with the rules for passport photos published on http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/photos/photos.html and http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/passports/photos/photographers-guide.html to check if there is creatieve freedom possible or not. This is the comparison:
- * the angle, no creative freedom, it should be "[...] directly facing the camera" and "The camera should be placed at the eye level of the person being photographed and at least 4 feet (1.25 meters) away."
- * the position, no creative freedom, it should be "Taken in full-face [...]", ""The height of the head (top of hair to bottom of chin) should measure 1 inch to 1 3/8 inches (25 mm - 35 mm)", "the eye height is between 1 1/8 inches to 1 3/8 inches (28 mm – 35 mm) from the bottom of the photo"
- * the facial expression of the person portrayed, no creative freedom, it should be "With a neutral facial expression and both eyes open"
- * the background, no creative freedom, it should be "Taken in front of a plain white or off-white background", "[..]free of patterns, objects, textures, etc."
- * the sharpness , no creative freedom, " low quality vending machine [...] not acceptable"
- * the light/lighting , no creative freedom, "The lighting arrangement should consist of a minimum of three (3) points of illumination; two (2) points of illumination should be placed at approximately 45 degrees on either side of the subject's face, the third point should be placed so as to illuminate the background uniformly. The background should be uniformly illuminated to remove any shadows or other lighting effects that would otherwise interfere with clearly discerning the facial outline on the background."
- Conclusion I: A correct passport photo is with the criteria mentioned in that case not an 'original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer'
- Then I checked our particular photo:
- * the angle - correct in front of the face on eye height
- * the position - front face person, eye height seems exactly matching the specs, but we could measure.
- * the facial expression of the person portrayed, indeed neutral facial expression
- * the background - offwhite (blue tone)
- * the sharpness (this picture is rasterised due to the low scan quality)
- * the light/lighting (left and right is both lighted, background has no shadows, so is lighted as well, this is matching the specs)
- Conclusion II: this picture looks like an accepted passport photo.
- Combining conclusions I and II would mean this passport photo has no copyright for European law and the Berne Convention. Not said this picture has no copyright in every country as according to the European Court "the protection of other photographs should be left to national law.". So that is still anopen question.
- --Hannolans (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Question: has this picture the same problem? File:247D243400000578-0-Cherif Kouachi is alleged to have carried the attack out with hi-a-8 1420805636047.jpg Sander.v.Ginkel (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, official document, not an artistic work. --Norden1990 (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per Esby, it's an official document, it has no artistic value, hence no copyright, even if taken by a professional photographer. Varmin (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Agree with Rama. Hypree (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Discasto and COM:PRP . Alan (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Discasto and COM:PRP. --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per COM:PRP. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete COM:PRP Olivier LPB (talk) 17:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible, per Rama and Esby. Not enough creativity, which is required by French copyright law. Yann (talk) 10:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This discussion was not kept open for the requisite 7 days per COM:DEL. At the time it was closed as "Keep", momentum seemed to be in favor of deletion per COM:PRP. Geogene (talk) 20:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Decision is not based on the number of votes, but on legal arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- Many users were not persuaded by those legal arguments. It's best to follow accepted policy when closing discussions. This should be noted in case someone decides to re-nominate this in the future. Geogene (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Renomination. The previous kept decission is based on the argument that the photo is taken with a en:Photo booth, there are two issues with this decission:
- The argument is speculation. There are certain requirements for passport photos leaving little space for photographers creativity. There is no evidence provided that the photograph is from a vending machine.
- Vending machines usually have a trigger. The trigger is pressed by a person, the person in the vending machine. Thats similar to a selfie. The photo is not created by an autoamted process and sure there is a copyright holder.
--Martin H. (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is not similar to a selfie: in a photo booth, you have no control over the lightning, the setting, the background, the people, the angle, the expression of your face. You have control over basically nothin, because the very point of the photo booth is to negate creativity (that is what the regulations on identity photographs amount to). The discussion on the trigger is irrelevant: it is not the human hand that creates copyright, it is human creativity. Go into photo booth with make-up and take a photograph upside down, it will have originality and will yield a copyright; go hack the photo booth so that you are in control of the settings and take a legally damissible identity photograph, you will still not have creativity, and thus no copyright over the product. Rama (talk) 06:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There is no room for creativity. That's exactly the point. French copyright law says that originality and creativity are needed for a copyright (French droit d'auteur) to exist. Criteria for ID pictures are very strict, and there is no place for creativity, even if taken by a photographer. Please see [4] or [5]. This is the exact opposite of what is required for a copyright. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The claim that any form of creativity is impossible in an ID photo is just an opinion, based on someone's subjective definition of what defines creativity. The only evidence given is list of regulations for ID photos, none of which actually state that they're not copyrightable or that they must have zero creativity. In fact they do the opposite, by allowing flexibility in terms of background color, etc. Commons has a page that discusses this [6] and it contains a link to an example of an image that has previously been considered an example of an image that is copyrightable: [7]. The nail clipper is much like these ID photos, a person/object standing in front of a colored background. I don't see how this is much different from that, and unless you're a judge your opinion on what can be considered creativity and artistic merit don't have much standing in the matter. What we do know is that French courts have previously considered the threshold pretty low. Geogene (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Geogene, that argument of creativity is not based entirely on a personal opinion, see the jurisdiction above of the European Court, did you read that? The nail clipper is another case, as the photographer took the freedom of position, freedom of lighting, and freedom of angle. --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hannolans, can you point out exactly what you're referring to? So that I can properly respond. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82078&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=148989 it sums up the requirements for a creative portrait photo. based on this above I used the criteria to compare this picture with. --Hannolans (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- From the conclusion of the case: 4. Under Article 6 of Council Directive 93/98/EEC harmonising the terms of protection of copyright and certain related rights and of Directive 2006/116/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on the term of protection of copyright and certain related rights, a portrait photo is afforded copyright protection if it is an original intellectual creation of the photographer, which requires the photographer to have left his mark by using the available formative freedom. So yes portrait photographs are copyrightable in principle depending on whether the photographer left his 'intellectual mark' on it in any way. I repeat that it is merely a personal opinion that the regulatory guidelines on ID photographs are too confining to allow any influence at all on the work. Just because you don't see a way to influence the outcome of a photo while staying within the guidelines does not mean that there is no way anyone could do so; or that a judge may not have a different opinion of what constitutes artistic content than you do. Geogene (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, I see you are interpreting this sentence: The photographer can determine, among other things, the angle, the position and the facial expression of the person portrayed, the background, the sharpness, and the light/lighting. as a literal and complete checklist of the only possible elements of creativity in a photo. I don't think they intended it to be taken that way. Geogene (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- "Just because you don't see a way to influence the outcome of a photo while staying within the guidelines does not mean that there is no way anyone could do so": I think that you are correct; for instance, I think that a Giga-pixel identity photograph might be creative enough, because you could feel the desire of the photograph to do something out of the ordinary while staying within the very deterministic guidelines. Of course in this instance it is not the case.
- "or that a judge may not have a different opinion of what constitutes artistic content": the opinion of the judge is irrelevant. In France, the judge is a technocratic civil servant whose job is to rule whether such or such disposition of the law applies to particular cases; their job is not to give substance to the law by writing jurisprudance that would later server as reference. A French judge could very well have an opinion of what constitutes artistic content; but they will kindly keep that to themselves and refer to the definition given in the law. The elaboration of the law is the job of the elected law-makers in the Parliament, and a judge ruling according to his opinion and in contradiction with guidelines given in a law will have his decision laughed out the court of cassation. Rama (talk) 06:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=82078&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=148989 it sums up the requirements for a creative portrait photo. based on this above I used the criteria to compare this picture with. --Hannolans (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hannolans, can you point out exactly what you're referring to? So that I can properly respond. Geogene (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Geogene, that argument of creativity is not based entirely on a personal opinion, see the jurisdiction above of the European Court, did you read that? The nail clipper is another case, as the photographer took the freedom of position, freedom of lighting, and freedom of angle. --Hannolans (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per Hannolans' excellent research. Martin H., I have never ever seen a photo booth with trigger. Rama (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, the trigger is automatically pressed when you insert the coin... that is the "trigger". Albertojuanse (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Martin H. said that "Vending machines usually have a trigger. The trigger is pressed by a person." You may change the meaning to an automatically actuated trigger, but that invalidades Martin's point. Rama (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The coin is the trigger. Albertojuanse (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- The coin is not a trigger: a trigger is a part of a system that sets it off. Read what you yourself said of that putative trigger: "the trigger is automatically pressed when you insert the coin", or what Martin H. said ("Vending machines usually have a trigger", "the trigger is pressed by a person."): is the coin pressed by a person? Does it press itself when you insert it? Does it belong or is it part of the photo booth?
- You are embarking on a philosophical quest to determine the causality of the photograph being taken. This is both a difficult question (I mean, PhD-thesis-difficult, and spoiler: the answer is that causality is an artefact of the human mind and in reality what "causes" an event is nothing or everything or anything in between) and completely irrelevant. What creates a copyright is not some magical and contagious property of the human hand; it is human creativity. No creativity, no copyright or authors' right, and all the triggers of OK Corral will change nothing to that. Rama (talk) 06:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The coin is the trigger. Albertojuanse (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Martin H. said that "Vending machines usually have a trigger. The trigger is pressed by a person." You may change the meaning to an automatically actuated trigger, but that invalidades Martin's point. Rama (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously, the trigger is automatically pressed when you insert the coin... that is the "trigger". Albertojuanse (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per me in previous DR. Creative identity photographies will be rejected for passport or identity card... Esby (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Idem.-- Bertrand GRONDIN → (Talk) 15:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for the same reasons Olivier LPB (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete for same reasons that I state in the first request. Albertojuanse (talk) 21:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Except this was taken in France, so there is no copyright here but 'droit d'auteur'. the two requirements for protection under it are:
- creativity.
- imbued with the spirit of its author,
- which together are not compatible with the identity photography requirement for national identity card or passport.
- Esby (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ehm... we talk about Copyright and droit d'auteur, see the inclusion criterion at Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Maybe the French Wikipedia allows for hosting of files that are not PD in the U.S. but in France? --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- France signed the Berne Convention (of 1886), meaning protected works in France are getting protection in the country which are members of the convention, I don't think you can have the copyright counterpart for non protected works in France. There are special case with work which protections expired in some country, but it is not the same here, since the photography here is not original enough, nor created from an artistic point of view (the imbued spirit of the author? to imitate a photobooth? seriously, no.) to be protected.
- Esby (talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Under the berne convention foreign authors are given the same rights as domestic authors in any country that signed the Convention. It is well possible that works not entitled to protection under foreign law are protected in the U.S. --Martin H. (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ehm... we talk about Copyright and droit d'auteur, see the inclusion criterion at Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law. Maybe the French Wikipedia allows for hosting of files that are not PD in the U.S. but in France? --Martin H. (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as previously, and per Hannolans. Totodu74 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Neutral: This is pointless (and probably also pointy): A general discussion needs to be had to decide upon a guideline to implement in Commons a stable interpretation of that quirky legal text in the case of automated mugshots taken in France. Then, after that guideline is agreed on, this photo — and a thousand others everybody seems to be neglecting — can be cleanly deleted or kept. -- Tuválkin ✉ 23:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC); clarif. at 00:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for my part if it's POINTY. But I thought the means by which this was taken is unknown, and consequently the discussion focuses on droit d' auteur/threshold of originality and US reciprocity. If someone can prove that this came from a photobooth, perhaps something in the EXIF data, I will change my !vote to 'Keep'. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- This do not came from a photobooth, Geogene, this came from here... Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nonsense: the URL you refer is that of a trivial, uncopyrightable photograph of an identity card, which features the photograph presently being discussed.
- There are two ways to produce such photographs: a photo booth, or a studio photographer. We do not have a positive proof that the photograph was taken in a photo booth -- in the same sense that we do not have a positive proof that you are a Human; you could be a very hight-tech chatterbot, only the probability is abysmally thin. How likely is it that notorious paupers woul dhire a professional photographer for an ID card? Producing that result? Get real. Rama (talk) 05:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- False dichotomy. Last time I needed a passport photo I went to a retail drug store. Photo booth was broken so a clerk took the photo with a hand-held digital camera. Last time I needed a driver license photo it was taken at a semi-automated kiosk operated by a clerk who had a trigger mechanism. There is no way to guess that from the result, except that they're obviously not professional work. Agree with PRP unless somebody knows a way to tell for sure. Geogene (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's it, Rama, per COM:PRP we must delete this photo unless the uploader could prove that this is a PD picture. Could you? How? Do you know the author? How do you know that this is picture with a photo booth? Did you were there when the photo was taken? Prove it! Albertojuanse (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the European directive it doesn't matter if a picture is made by a professional photographer or an amateur with a photobooth: "[..] no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account". A copyright is only applicable if it is an artistic work. Only if a picture has copyright, then the author becomes important as the author should then give us a license for reproduction. --Hannolans (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- So satellite imagery isn't copyrightable in the EU? News photography? Videography from political speeches? Surely the interpretation of 'artistic work' is rather broad. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- "per COM:PRP we must delete this photo unless the uploader could prove that this is a PD picture": you seem to entertain the fanciful notion that we can prove and know things for all images on Commons; it is not so. A large quantity of our work is founded on trust or judgement. To give you an example, there is no way to prove that a contributor uploading their images is who they say they are and have the copyright on their images. For another example, see how we deal with images from the 1880s whose author is unknown; or how we accept the spoliation commited by the US government (for instance they claim Heinrich Hoffmann's photographs are in the public domain, and we publish them as such on the ground that the US national archives have them; it is in fact not so). Claiming that identity photographs do not yield copyright is by no means the strongest claim we make on Wikimedia Commons.
- "Surely the interpretation of 'artistic work' is rather broad": the question is not of "artistic work", but of "imbued of the spirit of its author"; a technical photograph can absolutely be imbued of the spirit of its author, as soon as taking it entails solving problems such as choice of angle, lightning, etc. There is absolutely no question that News photography and videography from political speeches are non-trivial tasks, and they legitimatly yield copyrights : you get to chose the angle, the settings, you try to catch a particular moment, etc. Satellite imagery entail choices of spectrum and post-processing, so it could yield a copyright too, although here we are venturing into the realm of copyright on collective work held by institutions and waived by the public sector. Rama (talk) 06:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hannolans said that only artistic works are copyrightable. Here you seem to agree with me that if that is so, then 'artistic' is a broad concept. The 'sweat of the brow' ("non-trivial to make") doctrine doesn't apply here, only in the UK. Satellite imagery traditionally is for utilitarian, not artistic, purposes, as are ID photos. It also is traditionally copyrightable. So saying that an ID photo is not copyrightable because it is not artistic? That is not necessarily so. As for doubt, there's always some of it anywhere, it's not Cartesian skepticism to say there's a lot of doubt here. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- I meant 'artistic work' as defined by the "Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works" in Article 2.1 and translated by the European Court for portrait photography in the above case as: "an original work resulting from the intellectual creation of the photographer, which is the case where the photographer leaves his mark by using the available formative freedom of portrait photography".
- I'm not sure if we should discuss satellite imagery, as this is a passport photo of Said Kouachi. Anyway, "satellite imagery [..] is for utilitarian, not artistic, purposes", purpose should not matter for the European directive, as "[..] his personality, no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account;".--Hannolans (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. Yeah, I thought I could take that example somewhere useful, but it's much too far off-subject. Nevermind. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- 'So satellite imagery isn't copyrightable in the EU?' - no idea, even not sure what the country of origin should be. What I do know is the the Dutch Federation of Professional Photographers (Dupho) write on their website that for sure the following pictures has no copyright: rontgen and passport photo's (http://www.dupho.nl/kennisbank-auteursrecht/de-foto/auteursrecht-per-genre/pasfotos-portretten-en-huwelijksfotos), and sometimes product photo's (http://www.dupho.nl/kennisbank-auteursrecht/de-foto/auteursrecht-per-genre/reclamefotos). News and speeches are in most cases with copyright, but an interesting case is the so called 'Endstra tapes', http://kluwercopyrightblog.com/2013/08/20/backseat-conversations-not-protected-by-copyright/ --Hannolans (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- These are good sources. So these would not be copyrightable in the Netherlands, and the Dutch 'personal touch of the photographer' (Google's English translation) seems the same as from France and is also consistent with your EU court link earlier. The same logic seems to be used in the US, although the US courts seem to have a low threshold for recognizing creativity. But I think this would really test that limit in a novel way. Geogene (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hannolans said that only artistic works are copyrightable. Here you seem to agree with me that if that is so, then 'artistic' is a broad concept. The 'sweat of the brow' ("non-trivial to make") doctrine doesn't apply here, only in the UK. Satellite imagery traditionally is for utilitarian, not artistic, purposes, as are ID photos. It also is traditionally copyrightable. So saying that an ID photo is not copyrightable because it is not artistic? That is not necessarily so. As for doubt, there's always some of it anywhere, it's not Cartesian skepticism to say there's a lot of doubt here. Geogene (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- So satellite imagery isn't copyrightable in the EU? News photography? Videography from political speeches? Surely the interpretation of 'artistic work' is rather broad. Geogene (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- For the European directive it doesn't matter if a picture is made by a professional photographer or an amateur with a photobooth: "[..] no other criteria such as merit or purpose being taken into account". A copyright is only applicable if it is an artistic work. Only if a picture has copyright, then the author becomes important as the author should then give us a license for reproduction. --Hannolans (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- This do not came from a photobooth, Geogene, this came from here... Greetings. Albertojuanse (talk) 00:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies for my part if it's POINTY. But I thought the means by which this was taken is unknown, and consequently the discussion focuses on droit d' auteur/threshold of originality and US reciprocity. If someone can prove that this came from a photobooth, perhaps something in the EXIF data, I will change my !vote to 'Keep'. Geogene (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept per discussions in first nomination regarding copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be 'Own work' as the stated author is unknown (+ see history) Gyrostat (talk) 20:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see no reason why it shouldn't be the uploader's work, just because it is "anonymous" (the photo does not look like a professional's work, I should add). We should try and ask the uploader first... JJ Georges (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, usually, when the uploader is uploading is own work, he/she specifies his name or wiki nikcname and choose a licence. The fact that there is no licence and no author specified by the uploader is disturbing (especially given that the option by default on UploadWizard is 'This file is my own work' with CC-BY-SA 4.0 selected). But, indeed, we could ask the uploader first (he has been notified, by the way). Gyrostat (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, il me semble qu'on peut échanger en français... Vu les circonstances exceptionnelles, il serait compréhensible que l'utilisateur responsable ait commis une erreur en uploadant la photo. Attendons un peu, j'espère qu'il va réagir.... JJ Georges (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @JJ Georges: Convenu. Jonny Nixon (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ha, il me semble qu'on peut échanger en français... Vu les circonstances exceptionnelles, il serait compréhensible que l'utilisateur responsable ait commis une erreur en uploadant la photo. Attendons un peu, j'espère qu'il va réagir.... JJ Georges (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Well, usually, when the uploader is uploading is own work, he/she specifies his name or wiki nikcname and choose a licence. The fact that there is no licence and no author specified by the uploader is disturbing (especially given that the option by default on UploadWizard is 'This file is my own work' with CC-BY-SA 4.0 selected). But, indeed, we could ask the uploader first (he has been notified, by the way). Gyrostat (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete "Exceptional circumstances" cannot be claimed to breach commons policies. Commons:Fair use is not allowed in commons and in case of any doubt COM:PRP applies. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 12:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Keep It is safe to assume that this photograph is the work of original uploader BusterBrown: this image is nowhere to be found on the web (by image search or with keywords such as "Honoré Brive 2007"), it definitely looks like a personal photograph taken at a book fair, and original uploader is far from a regular (few edits and inactive since October 2012, see global contributions). Exceptional circumstances only apply as a possible explanation for an infrequent user wishing to remain anonymous and not be personally linked to the photograph or the events. BTW did you notify them by email? It might be worth it. For these reasons, keep. Place Clichy 13:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- As he/she didn't react so far and considering your comment, I just sent an email to BusterBrown. Gyrostat (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ouch. It turns out that the photo was taken from this article.... However, since it would be really sad to lose the possibility of illustrating Honoré's article, I just emailed Marianne Payot (who wrote the article and, apparently, also took the photos) in the hope that she can give us her permission. Can we just wait a few days for her eventual answer ? JJ Georges (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please see here. Marianne Payot has apparently agreed for the use of her photos. Euterpia is going to upload them and help her out with the OTRS permission. JJ Georges (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- See Special:Contributions/Mpayot, exif looks genuine. - Gonioul (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please see here. Marianne Payot has apparently agreed for the use of her photos. Euterpia is going to upload them and help her out with the OTRS permission. JJ Georges (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Ouch. It turns out that the photo was taken from this article.... However, since it would be really sad to lose the possibility of illustrating Honoré's article, I just emailed Marianne Payot (who wrote the article and, apparently, also took the photos) in the hope that she can give us her permission. Can we just wait a few days for her eventual answer ? JJ Georges (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete No evidence that it is own work. Looks like copyvio from [8]--Anatoliy (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete COPYVIO : à l’évidence cette photo est de Marianne Payot/L'Express --Claude Truong-Ngoc (talk) 22:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Tout est faux dans les dates indiqué par le téléverseur auteur du COPYVIO ! La photo a été prise le 10 décembre 2012. Voir dates de la foire du Livre de Brives en 2012 !
Delete Copyvio L'Express Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as copyvio from http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/societe/apres-l-attentat-contre-charlie-hebdo-l-ami-honore_1638674.html. INeverCry 17:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
obvious copyright violation 109.172.98.69 22:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Image is Russian actress Renata Litvinova. Very low res, no camera EXIF, user's first Commons upload, no license provided, image even states source is a magazine. —Tony Webster (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fan123namn (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image with nonsense description, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Private image with nonsense description, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. Looks like deleted, re-uploaded, DR'ed again... and again. E4024 (talk) 06:55, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The result is not the expected, please delet. Rodrigolopes (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution. Author not clearly identified. This image appears to be from a commercial website. No metadata. Cjp24 (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
poor quality; shows next to nothing Ohconfucius (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
poor quality; blurred Ohconfucius (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
poor quality; shows only a sea of people Ohconfucius (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
meaningless; poor quality; onlookers without context Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
poor quality; biker cop absent any context Ohconfucius (talk) 02:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Eurodyne (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:NOTHOST. Eurodyne (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Нет разрешения автора на загрузку файла под указанной лицензией Dogad75 (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolution, lack of metadata, and the "RFE/RL" watermark. —LX (talk, contribs) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No metadata, infamous 720 size and a blocked out something in lower left corner, most likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication that source image is user's own work, looks like rephotograph of older image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Blurry black and white image, unlikely to be user's own work and possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, small size, no metadata - possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No source given for base map, unlikelly to be user's own work, instead probable COM:COPYVIO Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
tyyy.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
tyyy.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Appears to be a test edit of some kind, out of COM:SCOPE not educationally useful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
tyyy.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
tyyy.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Appears to be a test edit of some kind, out of COM:SCOPE not educationally useful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
This is a closeup picture of a Johnson's and Johnson's image and Commons cannot keep it since this is a derivative image. De Minimis does not apply here. Leoboudv (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Pastel by Ugo Palmerini, source given as photo... but no information on life dates of illustrator making this a possible COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Given that this is a 1930 image it is highly unlikely to be user's own work and more likely a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:38, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a closeup picture of a Johnson's and Johnson's image and Commons cannot keep it since this is a derivative image. De Minimis does not apply here. Leoboudv (talk) 05:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination Please keep this image as it does not focus on just one or two J & J product. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Three white/orange gradients without educational utility, out of COM:SCOPE
Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
1922 Book cover is not own work of uploader. There's nothing on the cover itself to indicate the date. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
If author is "unknow", then the license here cannot possibly be correct and image is COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by SammyBoy241202 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Basemap not user's own work, COM:COPYVIO.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digesh dewangan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two signatures of a non-notable individual, in use on a self-promotional project page, out of COM:SCOPE
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digesh dewangan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Digesh +.jpg
- File:Digesh bilaigarh.jpg
- File:Digesh Dewangan Bilaigarh.jpg
- File:Digesh.jpg
- File:Digesh Dewangan.jpg
- File:Digesh kumar Dewangan.JPG
- File:Digesh kumar.JPG
- File:Digesh dewangan.jpg
Ies (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
While the photo is likely own work of uploader, the mural or scene depicted is not, and if this is Orlando Florida there's no FOP in the U.S. resulting in COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, small size, no metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons isn't a personal photo album, images are out of COM:SCOPE, must be realistically useful for educational purposes. Note descriptions, or lack thereof.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
https://mynetballjamaica.com/netball-in-jamaica/presidents-gallery/ image on left, page marked (c) makes claim of own work less likely without additional information on this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope:unused personal picture. Lupo 06:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Eurodyne (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture. Lupo 06:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
2001 Book Cover Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
book cover, very small, likely not user's own work and probable COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
![06:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/01/08#c-Ellin_Beltz-2015-01-08T06:45:00.000Z-File:"Дүрия_дүние".png){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
![00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/01/08#c-INeverCry-2015-01-15T00:40:00.000Z-File:"Дүрия_дүние".png){kind=link}
The image is out of scope. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope IMO, don't see the educational value Gbawden (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture. Was uploaded only for the speedied article en:THETEENAGETREASURES. Lupo 09:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal picture. Was uploaded only for the speedied article en:THETEENAGETREASURES. Lupo 09:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted stock photo: [9]. Used for instance at [10] (much larger, too). While these are "just" words, this is not PD-Text or PD-textlogo; I would consider the colorization and arrangement, i.e., the whole composition, to be copyrightable. Lupo 10:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Diagnodeal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope. See also en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Diagnodeal/sandbox where an obvious SPAM site is being prepared.
- File:Choose Diagnodeal, Get rid of Glasses & Contact Lenses.jpg
- File:Choose Diagnodeal to get rid of Glasses.jpg
- File:Choose Diagnodeal & Get rid of Glasses.jpg
- File:Choose Diagnodeal, Get rid of Glasses.png
- File:Get rid of Glasses.png
Ies (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jenniferschuitemaker (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement / self-promotional image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Awaken your 3* change.jpg
- File:MindBling Post.jpg
- File:New Year Greetings.jpg
- File:Jennnifer Schuitemaker post.jpg
- File:MindBling inspirational Post.jpg
- File:Jennifer Post MindBling.jpg
- File:AWAKEN YOUR 3º CHANGE.jpg
- File:Jennifer Schuitemaker's as Visionary Mentor Author Speaker.jpg
- File:Jennifer with Miss Universe Gabriela Isle for Cortaid.jpg
- File:Jennifer schuitemaker at Times Square New York City.jpg
- File:Jennifer Schuitemaker happy moments.jpg
- File:Jennifer Schuitemaker's Quotes.jpg
Ies (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Private image with nonsense description, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Motopark (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
![11:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/01/08#c-Motopark-2015-01-08T11:55:00.000Z-File:Dan_"Da_Zvedanja"_Haj-Ersan.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
![00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/01/08#c-INeverCry-2015-01-15T00:42:00.000Z-File:Dan_"Da_Zvedanja"_Haj-Ersan.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Funnymagic (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private / self-promoting image, out of project scope.
- File:Jasveer Singh (2) sdfsff.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (60).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (55).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (49).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (50).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa vgff.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (48).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (42).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (43).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa dfhdf.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa fhjhj.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (71).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (9).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa fgdf.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (37).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (31).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (22).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (30).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (68).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (35).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (1).jpg
- File:ZUntitled-2222.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (76).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (75).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (74).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (66).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (57).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa fggf.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsasdgsd.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (80).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa sdsdf.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (27).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (79).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa dsfs.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsagggg.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (32).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (28).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (39).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (33).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (38).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (44).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (29).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (17).jpg
- File:2014-07-13 x10.44.16.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsafg.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (40).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (77).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (20).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (24).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (34).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (47).jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh happy new year.jpg
- File:Beautiful-tree-and-river.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh Muktsar sahib khalsa.jpg
- File:Jasveer Singh (2).jpg
- File:Jasveer singh.jpg
- File:AJHPqzjl 0xQoq2By Ij261222Q.jpg
- File:All Is Well.jpg
_sdfsff.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Malgorzatadygas (talk · contribs)
[edit]The artist died in 2009 (see pl:Wikipedysta:Malgorzatadygas/Beata Nehring). The permission of the legal successors through OTRS is needed.
- File:BeataNehrihngGrafika1.jpg
- File:BeataKopieMyslęWięćjestem12na10cm1986r.JPG
- File:BeataKopieWierzbyMazowsze14na12cm.JPG
- File:BetaNehringSerceWplecaku14na12cm.JPG
- File:BeatanehringGrafika2.jpg
- File:BeataGrafikaMiniatura1989rok.jpg
- File:BeatanehringGrafika3.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs). Stas (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs). Stas (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with lots of better analogs (Category:Full moon photographs, Category:Moon photographs with foreground objects). Stas (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with lots of better analogs (Category:Full moon photographs). Stas (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete copyvio www.mixcloud.com/rolandvietchorek/playlists/françois-sky-v/ /St1995 21:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a photo from another photo. google images Rodrigolopes (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gimnasio Nueva Onda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Karem sertafin.jpg
- File:Karem.jpg
- File:Silvita.jpg
- File:GIMNASIO NUEVA ONDA.JPG
- File:ASU GODOY.JPG
- File:Francine.jpg
Ies (talk) 14:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Musicanico (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused presentation of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text-only image. Should be in SVG anyway. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
CopyVio from http://webblaster48.deviantart.com/art/CODE-C-114384381 Ilya (talk) 00:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, previously deleted. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
COM:NOTHOST - unused vanity images of non-notable person. Appear to be professionally photographed, thus may also be copyvios
- File:Antoine Simony 31.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 32.jpg
- File:Antoine Simony 30.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 28.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 29.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 27.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 26.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 23.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 25.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 24.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 22.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 19.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 21.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 20.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 17.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 18.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 16.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 15.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 14.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 13.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 12.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 11.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 10.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 09.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 07.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 08.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 06.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 04.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 05.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 01.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 03.JPG
- File:Antoine Simony 02.JPG
Эlcobbola talk 19:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Collection of promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Mathieu Morel et Léolo Victor-Pujebet.jpg
- File:Jules Talbot.png
- File:Jules Talbot - Affiche Axel Burning.png
- File:Laurent Savard sur le tournage de Axel Burning..png
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 10.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 11.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 12.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 08.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 09.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 06.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 07.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 05.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 04.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 03.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 02.jpg
- File:Tournage du film Axel Burning 01.jpg
- File:Laurent Savard et Léolo Victor-Pujebet.jpg
- File:Jules Talbot et Léolo Victor-Pujebet.jpg
- File:Jules Talbot sur le tournage du film "Axel Burning".jpg
- File:Jules Talbot - Axel Burning.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
deleted. INeverCry 00:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jagruti Firms (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement. Also unclear copyrights status.
- File:Jagruti Organic Farming.jpg
- File:Jagruti Jaggery.jpg
- File:Jagruti Oil.jpg
- File:Jagruti Sugar.jpg
- File:Jagruti Goat.jpg
- File:Jagruti Agro & LLP Logo.png
- File:Jagruti Agro Foods Pvt Ltd Logo.png
- File:Jagruti LLP Products.jpg
- File:NavJagruti News Logo.jpg
- File:NAV JAGRUTI LOGO.png
- File:Jagruti Agro logo.png
- File:Logo LLP.png
- File:Dada-photo.jpg
- File:Vermi.jpg
- File:Jagruti Fish Farming.png
- File:Goat3.jpg
- File:Goat2.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BeataSkobo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Simply Soweto Encha - The Journey.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha Tour Poster.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha Tour Banner.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha in Soweto.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha at Soweto Theatre.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha Edinburgh Fringe 2014.jpg
- File:Simply Soweto Encha.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All out of scope.
- File:Jayjay dasoul LIVE.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul FUK.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul GURU.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoulL.jpg
- File:Jayjay Dasoul KID.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul TOKYO.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul TRILL V.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul PDG SWAG.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND MIKE SMALL KID.jpg
- File:Jayjay Da$oul SCREAM.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND BAE.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul KICKS.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul ERA.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND PDG.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul GANGSTER.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND MIKE SMALL.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND AKA.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul EVENT.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul SET.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul FRESH.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul PANTS.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND NIKHO.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul FACE.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul MASK.jpg
- File:Jayjay Da$oul CLIP.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul NAME.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul AND MIKE SMALL CON.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul KING.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul PDG.jpg
- File:Jayjay dasoul and Mike Small PDG.jpg
Trijnsteltalk 16:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Thefireball777 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyvios from here and here. While the coins themselves may be old enough to be PD, the photographs of the coins have no free license (see COM:COIN)
Эlcobbola talk 16:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete but not based on the evidence above. The first link points back to Commons. The real source is www.cais-soas.com/News/2005/December2005/13-12.htm. The second link shows a low quality copy from which it would be impossible to derive the file here on Commons. The real source is www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/Images2/Coins/Khosrow_II_gold_dinar.jpg. (Spam filter prevents proper linking.) —LX (talk, contribs) 17:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's little need for the pedantic nonsense. The "real source" is irrelevant; it could indeed have come from www.cais-soas.com or somewhere else. The point is that it appeared elsewhere before the commons. File:Khosrow II gold dinar.jpg was uploaded today. It is thus not possible for even the "low quality copy," which existed before today, to have been derived from the Commons version. Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no. It's not "pedantic nonsense" to point out that files can't be copyright violations of themselves. Real evidence is relevant. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- There's little need for the pedantic nonsense. The "real source" is irrelevant; it could indeed have come from www.cais-soas.com or somewhere else. The point is that it appeared elsewhere before the commons. File:Khosrow II gold dinar.jpg was uploaded today. It is thus not possible for even the "low quality copy," which existed before today, to have been derived from the Commons version. Эlcobbola talk 17:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded in batch of copyvios related to this person (see user talk/deleted contribs). Quack? Эlcobbola talk 16:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution, no camera EXIF, and derivative of trophy even if uploader is photographer (user has many copyvio uploads - see talk/deleted contribs) Эlcobbola talk 17:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomin Fma12 (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Our of scope; non person, no educational value Gaff (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by The real shehab (talk · contribs)
[edit]Lower resolution, no camera EXIF, image subject purports to be author (author, not subject, holds copyright) - uploader is 
Likely sock - see Category:Sockpuppets_of_Over_the_Limit
Эlcobbola talk 17:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low resolution, scanner metadata suggests derivative work of photograph, uploaded among other copyvios. Quack? Эlcobbola talk 17:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manibellie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Visual artifacts suggest scan of publication (see File:Badugascript.jpg); alternatively, may be advertising (see File:Chutti Saravan Baduga Script.jpg). In either case, appear not to be uploaders own work (and uploaded with copyvio - File:New catalogue.jpg)
- File:Badugascript.jpg
- File:Baduga script.jpg
- File:Chutti Saravan Baduga Script.jpg
- File:Chutti Saravan Baduga Script 1.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 17:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This image is solely uploaded for using Wikipedia as personal blog and Facebook. On Hindi Wikipedia this person created more than 4 accounts and uploaded his own images and of his brothers for use on user pages and even articles. We blocked his accounts after a Checkuser, now he uploaded his image here and using it again by IPs. Can be seen here and here. This person is hell bent for petty reputation. हिंदुस्थान वासी (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- click here to view Checkuser result, this user operates multiple sock accounts and is busy creating a family photo album on hindi wikipedia and indulged in multiple act of vandalism...--...Sushilmishra (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Decision to delete already made, but it wasn't deleted. Gaff (talk) 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not uploader's own work. Low res, no camera EXIF, etc. Quack. Эlcobbola talk 17:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Bulk copyvio uploads - see metadata. For example: many copyrighted to Gary Fikes Fotography www.garyfikes.com, also to PIERRE MAHIEU, etc. Also some unambiguous copyvios (e.g. File:Nyzzy Nyce - Paris Photo Shoot 01.jpg is here)
- File:Alex Smith - Fort Wayne - 01.jpg
- File:Ryan Hodges x Nyzzy 18 - 2014.JPG
- File:Ryan Hodges x Nyzzy 02 - 2014.jpg
- File:Ryan Hodges x Nyzzy 33 - 2014.jpg
- File:Nyzzy Nyce Paris France Studio 01.jpg
- File:Nyzzy Nyce - Paris France 05.jpg
- File:Nyzzy Nyce Black n White.JPG
- File:Nyzzy Nyce - Winter 2014.JPG
- File:Nyzzy Nyce Star.jpg
- File:Nyzzy Nyce - Paris Photo Shoot 01.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 17:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of product packaging Эlcobbola talk 17:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jathinsarang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 35.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 32.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 33.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 31.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 30.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 29.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 28.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 25.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 24.JPG
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 23.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 22.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 21.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 20.jpg
- File:Jathin click atSarang19.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 19.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 18.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 17.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 16.jpg
Ies (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jathinsarang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images.
--ghouston (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 00:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jathinsarang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos - out of project scope:
- File:My latest edited photo.jpg
- File:Captured when i had new hairestyle.jpg
- File:Captured edited using online tool.jpg
- File:When the photo edited with new tool 1.jpg
- File:When the photo edited with new tool 2.png
- File:Picture with how the back ground removed 3.png
- File:Picture with how the back ground removed 1.png
- File:Picture with how the back ground removed 2.jpg
Derivative work containing non-free content:
XXN, 23:03, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jathinsarang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos and artworks.
- File:Pic taken using oppo F1s 12.jpg
- File:Pic taken by oppo F1s 5.jpg
- File:Pic taken by oppo F1s 4.jpg
- File:Pic taken by oppo F1s 2.jpg
- File:Pic taken by oppo F1s 1.jpg
- File:Pic taken by oppo F1s 3.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 39.jpg
- File:Jathin click at Sarang 38.jpg
~Moheen (keep talking) 22:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jathinsarang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shopinbliss (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, uploader has multiple DN's and speedies. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. The uploader does not seem to understand what "own work" means. It seems unlikely that he or she designed this carpet. In fact, it seems unlikely that he or she even created the photograph of the carpet. It appears to have been grabbed from http://www.spongobongo.com/daxv366.htm (where it was published in May 2009 according to the file's timestamp on the server). —LX (talk, contribs) 18:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs). Stas (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The image illustrates shooting through an eyepiece. I don't see a pressing need to delete this. --Dschwen (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per above. /St1995 21:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of the Community of Madrid.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete SVG exists. Illegitimate Barrister 10:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Author died in 1993, not out of copyright yet. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication of own work by uploader, no metadata Instagram Square Size. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Not own work of uploader, old photo, small size. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, in use on self-promotional user page Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
as creator Andrew J.Kurbiko (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Andrew J.Kurbiko: If you want to delete your own files then you should tag them for speedy deletion. --Leftcry (talk) 05:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability: Magazine profile Basvb (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability: company profile Basvb (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Fire protection booklet, also have some doubts about permission Basvb (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Resume Basvb (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violations in the images used in this document. One example is the painting by Picasso. Otherwise also some doubts on whether this is in scope. Basvb (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Corporate profile Basvb (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. company profile Basvb (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with many better analogs (Category:Solar eclipse of 2008 August 1). Stas (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with many better analogs (Category:Solar eclipse of 2008 August 1). Stas (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Web resolution; no indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Also, although this was uploaded here in 2007, we've got uses in 2005 and 2006. Copyvio. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile Basvb (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile Basvb (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Difficulté pour faire comprendre que c'est une photo de plus de 70 ans donc libre de droits Francois Guillon (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. company profile Basvb (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile Basvb (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Difficulté pour faire comprendre que c'est une photo de plus de 70 ans donc libre de droits Francois Guillon (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile Basvb (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile. Basvb (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Personal profile. Basvb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile. Basvb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company profile. Basvb (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Basvb (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Basvb (talk) 19:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Own work also unlikely Basvb (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Basvb (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Basvb (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Document about a student Basvb (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The file name indicates that the file has been copied from the page https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=631360448 on Facebook and there is no evidence that the Commons user is the same person as the Facebook user or that the Facebook user has permitted the Commons user to upload the file under the indicated licence. See COM:OTRS for instructions on how to rectify this.
The link to Facebook is currently dead. This may mean that the file has been deleted from Facebook or that it has been marked as private. Stefan4 (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. I have put three of the uploaders other images up for deletion as well. Alan Liefting (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Additionally, the image seems to be out of scope. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eml5526.s11.team04.premchand (talk · contribs)
[edit]These four images contain a screenshot of the wolfram alpha interface and as such likely violate their copyrights.
Basvb (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company story. Basvb (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company story. Basvb (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with no educational value, out of scope. Stas (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Company document. Basvb (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aquapristineco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability. Company documents .
- File:Waste water treatment company delhi Aqua Pristine.jpg
- File:Waste water treatment company india, delhi.pdf
- File:Waste Water Treatment Company, sewage treatment plant supplier delhi, india.pdf
- File:Waste Water Treatment Company in Delhi india.pdf
- File:Sewage treatment plant supplier in india, Waste Water Treatment Company in Delhi.pdf
- File:Sewage treatment plant supplier in delhi, Waste Water Treatment Company in India.pdf
Basvb (talk) 19:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs). Stas (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope; no realistic educational purpose. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete too bad quality /St1995 21:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Company advertising material all are in use on w:id:Qyu FM, that article simply looks like a spam article.
- File:COMPANY-PROFILE QYU RADIO 2014 PDF Page 4.png
- File:COMPANY-PROFILE QYU RADIO 2014 PDF Page 2.png
- File:COMPANY-PROFILE QYU RADIO 2014 PDF Page 3.png
- File:COMPANY-PROFILE QYU RADIO 2014 PDF Page 1.png
- File:LOGO QYU.png
Basvb (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image without meaningful description and no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image without informative description; no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image without informative description; no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image without informative description; no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete /St1995 21:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright [11] Uğurkent (talk) 20:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Mapale9889 = 4 uploads on 15.05.2014 --> 3x copyvios. Gunnex (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality version of File:Cachorrocefetbhmg.JPG, no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete /St1995 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality version of File:Cachorrocefetbhmg.JPG, no educational value. Stas (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete /St1995 21:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Copyvyo, Badfairuse - see http://www.prodancestudio.kz/wpimages/wpc4235949_05_06.jpg (date of publication 03.09.2012) GAndy (talk) 20:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by SarahStierch as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This artwork is made by a contemporary artist named Gordon Heuther. His work is not in the public domain and is still copyrighted. FOP-deletions should always be DRs. Josve05a (talk) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete — Actually this photo is of an untitled bronze by Spanish sculptor Marcel Martí (1925–2010). However, since this is a derivative work of copyrighted work, there is no FoP in US for artwork, and the sculpture will be protected by copyright until January 1, 2081, we, unfortunately, are obliged to delete this photo. —RP88 (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This may be too close to the original to be useable. Please compare to original drawing here: http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-212-01-0001.pdf Gaff (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: The geometric properties of the skull are given by the real world object, and not really subject to artistic interpretation in a scientific illustration. The drawing style of the two works and the layout of the three views are quite different. Those are the two aspects where the creativity of the author comes into play, and thus the only ones relevant to the copyvio question. (Maybe changing the layout some more, eg. by arranging all parts in a row, would make the distinction even more obvious). --Latebird (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- okay! Thank you. I will tweak it a little more. Images for these small animals are hard to find. Gaff (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Probably not own work: low resolution, no exif data, uploaders history. 4ing (talk) 21:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Original image: http://nikolaevka21.narod.ru/foto_gorod/stancia.jpg --Artemka (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
All other photos uploaded by this user were copyvios uploded under false self made claim. Image dosent't have EXIF metadata, so probably comes from web too. Oleola (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is an album cover and is probably under copyright. We hope (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Needs OTRS at the very least. Also at w:File:BGSO-digipack album 2015.jpg under a fair use claim. Same uploader on both projects. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Iceland, the cathedral was built 1956-63. I'm the author. Poco2 23:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC). Same for:
- File:Catedral de Skálholt, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 138.JPG
- File:Catedral de Skálholt, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 139.JPG
- File:Catedral de Skálholt, Suðurland, Islandia, 2014-08-16, DD 140.JPG
Poco2 23:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Yehunie Belay graduated in 2013 with Associates Degree in Information Technology 2013.jpg
[edit]
personal photo, unused, sole upload, and probably not the uploader's own work, since he is the subject, and the photo looks professional Pibwl (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Bitte löschen. Falsche Datei hochgeladen. Nachfolgedatei: File:MKG-Porzellan-MaguUndHirsch-Bild-0144.jpg ArishG (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
No permission - and likely copyvio too. Trijnsteltalk 16:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
personal drunk photo, not much educational value, unused, possible privacy infrigement (there are two persons, and it isn't known, if any is author) Pibwl (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Does not exist anymore, new branding AILGroup82 (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- That is not a reason for deletion Oxyman (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto, it's a historic record of the premises as they were, and thus perhaps of value to future historians. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Indeed, that the subject can no longer be photographed only increases the historical value of extant images.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Didym (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo Pibwl (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 13:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
TV screen shot, licensing permission suspect Gaff (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged as missing permission. DLindsley Need something? 03:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
rather professional photo of a missile launch, unlikely own photo. Suspected are other user's photos, each taken with a different camera, especially File:PET 5313.JPG, File:S0510178.JPG (are ordinary people allowed to approach Putin to take photos?), and File:СОУ ЗРК Бук-М2Э.jpg (too professional) Pibwl (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Nominating the most recent upload on this file for deletion as it has no apparent connection to the one below it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It seems the first was unused too. Delete and redirect to File:Image.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Update: I deleted the most recent as a duplicate. Leaving the DR intact for the old image. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, no idea what you're talking about, but this is some six years old SPA upload for a page deleted in 2011 as NN. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi there - this has an "all rights reserved" licence, not a Creative Commons licence and should not have been loaded onto Wikimedia Commons 136.154.23.253 07:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, in use, but no obvious permission. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 23:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, lack of metadata, and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations. —LX (talk, contribs) 07:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, 2014-02-20 is older with all rights reserved. –Be..anyone (talk)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative work from commercial packaging. Why not to make photos of candies themselves instead? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Purely personal reasons, I guess. I like candy, but in my adult life, I like buying it more than eating it. This image is a special case, as every single candy bag or box present in the image is foreign, not available in Finland. I have preserved them in unopened state. I guess I will have to open them and photograph the actual candies. It doesn't mean I have to eat them straight away. JIP (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- How is, for example, this acceptable in Commons but the image discussed here isn't? JIP (talk) 13:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for reporting problem! Nominated for deletion too. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The tail of the aircraft has been Photoshopped. 717person (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It has not been Photoshopped at all. No alterations whatsoever.
I fail to see how on earth anyone can come to that conclusion. I took the photo and can promise you no alterations have been made.
User: Brorsson
After having a second look at the picture I can not see what the user 717person could possibly refer to. Since no evidence nor further description of what user 717person means I can not do anything but deny that anything has been changed in the picture. The picture reflects how the plane looked.
I suggest you close this case!!
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be a copyright violation from themediaant.com, [here], which claims copyright. (It may be that that organisation has copied it from here, though.) SimonTrew (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Indeed this image has been copied from Wikipedia. But how do I prove my claim ? Raamdharmaj
- Delete: Please upload locally as Fair use instead of Commons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 15:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Poor quality, not used. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, in scope for category:robots in art if there is no license issue. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 12:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of the poster. Lewis Hulbert (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Private image of a user's parents, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 16:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Its use on en:Helmut Kirchmeyer looks pretty realistic to me. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Very small, unlikely to be own works.
Yann (talk) 12:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Taken alone, being small is no reason to delete nor evidence of copyvio.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
___________________________________________________________________________
Deleted : both images were recolorized from other websites, direct links to which were placed in the individual deletion summaries. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep since it's still in use at ko.wikipedia. If a better image replaces it, I'd change my vote to delete. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
CD cover and inlet. Supposedly own work of the artist, but it is rather an autopromo (there was a photo already deleted [12]) . Same for other uploads: file:Ueè inlay rear.jpg, File:Ueè inlay.jpg, File:Ueè rear dim.jpg Pibwl (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
![[12]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Fortuzzi.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Out of scope and/or copyvios. Yann (talk) 12:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Wrong or inadequate license information. Cobija (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This seems to come from a book, so it is probably not own work by the uploader to English Wikipedia as claimed there. It is unclear what the uploader is trying to claim, but we do not have any evidence of permission for the stated licence. Stefan4 (talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Potential keep. The source is a Flickr image. It's scanned from a book published in Vienna in 1889, so the Flickr uploader's claim of copyright is irrelevant; we only need to consider copyright in the work itself. Presumably lots of things from 1889 are in the public domain in Austria, although maybe not all (thus "potential"), while anything published in 1889 is PD-US. The only issue is the possibility of Austrian copyright, so I'll listen if anyone familiar with it says "delete". Nyttend (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Auhtor seems to be Wilhelm, Karl, 1848-1933. Yann (talk) 12:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
This is not an accurate representation. Please change ASAP. Cambrogan (talk) 22:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Cambrogan, I'm not sure what you mean by accurate representation. I can upload a new version of this file if that's what you're looking for. Wwongbc (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
It is a really bad picture of me. 24.74.213.164 19:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
a copyvio? Pibwl (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
photo of an unnamed person, unused, out of scope. Other two uploads don't look like own work File:First Sri Lankan woman on MTV International 002.jpg, File:First Sri Lankan woman on MTV International001.jpg and are probably not notable either. Pibwl (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Martin Garrix au Gala Centrale Paris 2014.jpg Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
there is a duplicate image available in commons Mpaoxi (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Kept: no replacement image found Krd 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hreinn Gudlaugsson (talk · contribs)
[edit]Translate by translate.google.de
- File:Peter-Rosendal 01.jpg
- File:Carl-winther 01.jpg
- File:Jens-soendergaard DSC08879 sh.jpg
- File:Ulf-Wakenius 01.jpg
- File:Simon-spang-hansen 01.jpg
- File:Kurt-elling 01.jpg
- File:Peter-danemo.jpg
- File:Wycliffe-gordon.jpg
- File:Ian-froman.jpg
- File:Mikko-Innanen.jpg
- File:Rudi-mahall01.jpg
- File:Rudi mahall.jpg
- File:Josefine-cronholm.jpg
- File:Lotte-anker marc-ducret Ture-Larsen.jpg
- File:Poul-ruders01.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood05.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood09.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood08.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood07.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood06.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood04.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood03.jpg
- File:Kresten-Osgood02.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood01.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood.jpg
- File:Eythor-gunnarsson.jpg
- File:Fridri-Karlsson.jpg
- File:Peter-Brötzmann.jpg
- File:Michael-Wollny.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson06.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson05.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson04.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson03.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson02.jpg
- File:Mats-Gustafson01.jpg
- File:Evan-parker06.jpg
- File:Evan-parker05.jpg
- File:Alexander-von-Schlippenbachh01.jpg
- File:Alexander-von-Schlippenbach.jpg
- File:Chris-Cheek01.jpg
- File:Chris-Cheek.jpg
- File:Larry-grenadier05.jpg
- File:Larry-grenadier04.jpg
- File:Larry-grenadier03.jpg
- File:Larry-grenadier02.jpg
- File:Larry-grenadier01.jpg
- File:Mark-Turner04.jpg
- File:Mark-Turner03.jpg
- File:Stian-Westerhus09.jpg
- File:Stian-Westerhus05.jpg
- File:Stian-Westerhus04.jpg
- File:Stian-Westerhus03.jpg
- File:Stian-Westerhus01.jpg
- File:The-thing Otomo-Yoshihide.jpg
- File:Jacob-Christoffersen.jpg
- File:Carlo-DeRosa.jpg
- File:Christina-von-Bülow.jpg
- File:Garzone-christiansen.jpg
- File:Gerald-Cleaver 01.jpg
- File:Evan-parker04.jpg
- File:Evan-parker03.jpg
- File:Evan-parker02.jpg
- File:Evan-parker.jpg
- File:Nate-wooley.jpg
- File:Rudesh-mahanthappa.jpg
- File:Chris-corsano04.jpg
- File:Chris-corsano03.jpg
- File:Chris-corsano02.jpg
- File:Chris-corsano01.jpg
- File:Chris-corsano.jpg
- File:Anders-bergctantz02.jpg
- File:John-cale.jpg
- File:Thomas-blachman.jpg
- File:Otomo-Yoshihide.jpg
- File:Ingebrigt-Haaker-Flaten03.jpg
- File:Ingebrigt-Haaker-Flaten02.jpg
- File:Paal-Nilssen-Love.jpg
- File:Haavard-wiik.jpg
- File:Alexander-abreu.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg11.jpg
- File:Aaron-parks.jpg
- File:Oeystein-Moene.jpg
- File:Gard-Nilssen.jpg
- File:Puma band.jpg
- File:Django-bates.jpg
- File:Marilyn-mazur09.jpg
- File:Marilyn-mazur08.jpg
- File:Marilyn-Mazur07.jpg
- File:Marilyn-Mazur06.jpg
- File:Marilyn-Mazur05.jpg
- File:Marilyn-Mazur04.jpg
- File:Marilyn mazur01.jpg
- File:Marilyn-mazur.jpg
- File:Ellery-Eskelin.jpg
- File:Ray-anderson.jpg
- File:Uffe-sxteen02.jpg
- File:Jens-jefsen.jpg
- File:Peter-erskine.jpg
- File:Anders-Christensen.jpg
- File:Nikolaj-hess01.jpg
- File:Lars-moeller.jpg
- File:Adam-nussbaum.jpg
- File:Marius-neset05.jpg
- File:Marius-neset04.jpg
- File:Marius-Neset03.jpg
- File:Jonas-westergaard.jpg
- File:Ben-Street.jpg
- File:Andrew-cyrille01.jpg
- File:Henry-grimes.jpg
- File:Henry-grimes john-tchicai kresten-osgood.jpg
- File:Joe-bonamassa06.jpg
- File:Roy-Rogers01 DSC00753.jpg
- File:Honey-Alexander david-Kida.jpg
- File:Rod-Piazza honey.jpg
- File:Rod-Piazza.jpg
- File:Nathan-Williams.jpg
- File:Sherman-Robertson.jpg
- File:Caecilie-Norby.jpg
- File:John-Medeski.jpg
- File:Herb-robertson-skovbakke-banke01.jpg
- File:Tim-berne03.jpg
- File:Mary-halvorson.jpg
- File:Tony-malaby01.jpg
- File:Tony-malaby.jpg
- File:Ches-smith01.jpg
- File:Ches-smith.jpg
- File:Michael-formanek01.jpg
- File:Michael-formanek.jpg
- File:Elith-Nykjaer-Joergensen nulle.jpg
- File:Mprten-schantz02.jpg
- File:Morten-schantz01.jpg
- File:Marius-neset02.jpg
- File:Marius-neset01.jpg
- File:Kristor-broedsgaard02.jpg
- File:Kristor-Broedsgaard01.jpg
- File:Daniel-davidsen02.jpg
- File:Daniel-davidsen01.jpg
- File:Anton-eger02.jpg
- File:Anton-eger01.jpg
- File:Jazzkamikaze.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg06.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg05.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg04.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg03.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg02.jpg
- File:Stefan-pasborg01.jpg
- File:Ed-thigpen.jpg
- File:Benjamin-koppel.jpg
- File:Cuong-vu01.jpg
- File:Cuong-vu.jpg
- File:Luther-thomas03.jpg
- File:Luther-thomas02.jpg
- File:Luther-Thomas01.jpg
- File:Luther-thomas.jpg
- File:Jesper-bodilsen04.jpg
- File:Jesper-bodilsen05.jpg
- File:Jesper-bodilsen03.jpg
- File:Jesper-bodilsen02.jpg
- File:Jesper-bodilsen.jpg
- File:Thomas-fryland.jpg
- File:Stian-westerhus.jpg
- File:Nasheet-waits.jpg
- File:Ole-fessor.jpg
- File:Karsten-vogel.jpg
- File:Bill-stewart.jpg
- File:Dave-liebman03.jpg
- File:Dave-liebman02.jpg
- File:Dave-liebman.jpg
- File:Eric-alexander jan-lundgren.jpg
- File:Eric-alexander02.jpg
- File:Eric-alexander01.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani08.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani06.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani05.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge07.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge06.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge05.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge04.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge02.jpg
- File:Pierre-doerge03.jpg
- File:Pierre-dørge01.jpg
- File:Bobo-moreno.jpg
- File:Hans-ulrik.jpg
- File:Marie-fisker.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro08.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro07.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro06.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro05.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro04.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro03.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro02.jpg
- File:Jakob-bro01.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl06.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl05.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl04.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl03.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl02.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl01.jpg
- File:Carsten-dahl.jpg
- File:Katrine-madsen.jpg
- File:Malene-mortensen03.jpg
- File:Malene-mortensen02.jpg
- File:Malene-mortensen01.jpg
- File:Kresten-osgood02.jpg
- File:Thomas-clausen.jpg
- File:Kluvers-big-band.jpg
- File:Tomasz-stanko.jpg
- File:Jim-black01.jpg
- File:Jim-black.jpg
- File:Malene-mortensen.jpg
- File:Lee-konitz.jpg
- File:Chris-speed hg.jpg
- File:Jens-winter01.jpg
- File:Palle-mikkelborg02.jpg
- File:Sinne-eeg.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani04.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani03.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani02.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani01.jpg
- File:Stefano-bollani.jpg
- File:Billy-hart06.jpg
- File:Billy-hart05.jpg
- File:Billy-hart04.jpg
- File:Billy-hart03.jpg
- File:Billy-hart02.jpg
- File:Billy-hart01.jpg
- File:Peter-Danstrup02.jpg
- File:Peter-Danstrup01.jpg
- File:Peter-wuust.jpg
- File:Lars-jansson03.jpg
- File:Lars-jansson02.jpg
- File:Lars-jansson01.jpg
- File:Lars-jansson.jpg
- File:Lennart-ginman.jpg
- File:Miroslav-Vitous03.jpg
- File:Miroslav-Vitous02.jpg
- File:Miroslav-Vitous01.jpg
- File:Jesper-lundgaard02.jpg
- File:Jesper-Lundgaard DSC03488.jpg
- File:Jesper-lundgaard.jpg
- File:John-tchicai06.jpg
- File:John-tchicai05.jpg
- File:John-tchicai04.jpg
- File:John-tchicai03.jpg
- File:John-tchicai02.jpg
- File:John-Tchicai01.jpg
- File:Jerry-bergonzi carl-winther DSC04569.jpg
- File:Jerry-bergonzi02.jpg
- File:Jerry-bergonzy01.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen dinesen.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen-kjærgaard-osgood.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen04.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen03.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen02.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmussen01.jpg
- File:Hugo-rasmusen.jpg
- File:Mads-vinding jean-michel-pilc.jpg
- File:Mads-vinding billy-hart.jpg
- File:Mads-vinding02.jpg
- File:Mads-vinding01.jpg
- File:Mads-vinding.jpg
- File:Soeren-kjaergaard.jpg
- File:Benny-golson05.jpg
- File:Benny-golson03.jpg
- File:Benny-golson02.jpg
- File:Benny-golson01.jpg
- File:Mark-Turner02.jpg
- File:Mark-Turner01.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard06.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard05.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard04.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard03.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard02.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard01.jpg
- File:Jeff-ballard.jpg
- File:Fredrik-lundin06.jpg
- File:Fredrik-lundin04.jpg
- File:Fredrik-lundin03.jpg
- File:Fredrik-lundin02.jpg
- File:Fredrik-lundin.jpg
- File:Thomas-agergaard04.jpg
- File:Thomas-agergaard03.jpg
- File:Thomas-agergaard02.jpg
- File:Thomas-agergaard01.jpg
- File:Thomas-agergaard.jpg
- File:Morten-lund05.jpg
- File:Morten-lund04.jpg
- File:Morten-lund02.jpg
- File:Morten-lund01.jpg
- File:Morten-lund.jpg
- File:Morten-ramsboel.jpg
- File:Jan-kaspersen04.jpg
- File:Jan-kaspersen03.jpg
- File:Jan-kaspersen02.jpg
- File:Jan-kaspersen01.jpg
- File:Jan-kaspersen.jpg
- File:Palle-Danielson04.jpg
- File:Palle-danielson03.jpg
- File:Palle-danielson02.jpg
- File:Palle-danielson01.jpg
- File:Alex-riel04.jpg
- File:Alex-riel03.jpg
- File:Alex-riel02.jpg
- File:Alex-riel01.jpg
- File:Alex-riel.jpg
Knochen ﱢﻝﱢ 20:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is Hreinn Gudlaugsson commenting on the deletion request...
All files are pictures taken by me.
All files have been edited for the use on screen on WIkipedia, which explains the file dates and the low resolution.
Some of the files can be found on the www.jazzfest.dk website ( /About / Photo galleri ). This is the site of Aarhus Jazzfestival in Denmark, where I have been contributing as a photgrapher fore some years. You are welcome to contact the festival administration to confirm that the photos are taken by me.
My hope is therfore that the deletion request will be dropped as soon as possible.
Kind regards
Hreinn
- Comment above later added by Hreinn above the section header, swapped by me to avoid confusions on pages where this deletion request is transcluded, e.g., 2014-12-28. Earlier comment below kept for now: @Hreinn Gudlaugsson: , maybe remove your older version, these discussions are normally top down in roughly chronological order. The trick to get a proper signature are four tildes
~~~~, three or five tildes have other (related) effects. –Be..anyone (talk) 08:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This is Hreinn Gudlaugsson commenting on the request for deleting the uploaded files...
All uploaded pictures are mine.
The reason for the dating and the low resolution is that I am delivering files for use on screen only, for the benefit of Wikipedia users.
Just visit the jazzfest.dk website (/about /photo gallery) for confirmation that the photos are taken in Aarhus / Denmark by me and that I deliver photos of jazzmusicians to other websites than wikimedia.
I do not know if this is the right way to comment on the deletion request, but it is the only way I know how.
Kind regards
Hreinn
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hreinn Gudlaugsson (talk • contribs) 2014-12-28 22:39 (UTC)
- Perfectly correct comment. But commons is actually a repository for high quality pictures, keeping low quality only if the alternative would be nothing at all. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
- Delete: There does seem to be some doubt over the ownership of the images, and they all seem to be tiny images that are easily replaceable by better quality images already present on Commons. --DAJF (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
- DAJF you are wrong saying that the images are easily replaceable. My estimate is that 90% of the pages on Wikipedia where my images are placed do not have any alternative images on Wikimedia Commons.
5 January 2015, Hreinn Gudlaugsson
- This is Hreinn Gudlaugsson commenting on --DAJF vote, and this is also a plea to upcoming voters
PLEASE... PLEASE... PLESE... CONSIDER THIS BEFORE VOTING
You have 3 options on confirming the ownership of the images:
1. Take my word for it that the images are mine.
2 Visit the www.jazzfest.dk website ( /About / Photo galleri ) where some of the photos are published in my name.
3. Contact the administrator for jazzfest.dk using this mail info@jazzfest.dk (att. Ilse Vestergaard) to confirm that the photos are taken by me.
5 January 2015, Kind regards
Hreinn
- I think the files can be kept. However, I remember a discussion (but not when and where) that scaling down a picture is not something reaching the threshold of originality, therefore one could argue that the given license applies to the photo by itself, not to the resolution chosen for upload. → «« Man77 »» [de] 09:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- And there is actually no upload for a specific use ("for Wikipedia [only]"). → «« Man77 »» [de] 09:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- These fotos are highly welcomed for illustrating the jazz pages of at least German wikipedia. I believe that these fotos are not copied from other fotografers. The user is not using an alias name and he is interested in having his name mentioned with the fotos as the licence (and his practise in some Wikipedias) prove. It is very easy to proof that there is a Hreinn Gudlaugson working in Aarhus since long years as graphic designer and it is silly destroying such an amount of pictures, a donation to mankind's commons with the argument of Commons as „a repository for high quality pictures“ (we have here a lot of images in lower quality than the fotos of Mr Gudlaugson).
- If Commons has no interest in fotos in low resultion please let not do the delinking work in the German wikipedia by a bot, but do it handwise (especially on the 12 pages of https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Jazz/Jahrestage) because otherwise You are destroying a wiki template.--Engelbaet 8 January 2015(no stamp because of faults in commons stamp „uncovering“ my password).
Keep - the arguments for deletion are not clear. It is not correct the uploader claims that all pictures have been taken in just three months. They have been uploaded over a period of three months, but that does not imply that the pictures are from the same period. It makes no sense to argue that the pictures are probably copies from the Internet. First of all, it is not possible to find the pictures on the net other than at the website to which uploader has contributed. Second, it is quite clear that a least a large proportion of the photos are taken by the same photographer. If it was random pictures they would by much more diverse. All the artists have performed in Aarhus during the last few years. The pictures are valuable for Commons documenting a number of Danish and non-Danish jazz artists. They are not easy to replace by existing pictures on Commons.
Obviously, uploader could have been more specific when uploading the pictures and proper license should be given, but apart from that, I see no reason for deletion. --Pugilist (talk) 19:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hreinn commenting:
Thank you very much for the KEEP arguments.
You are absolutely right.
I am very glad for your insight in photography, saying "that it is clear that the photos are taken by the same photographer" it has to do with personality and photographic style.
Kind regards, Hreinn, 13 January 2015
- Delete The uploads present permission problems in general. DLindsley Need something? 19:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can you be a bit more specific ? --Pugilist (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
'Kept per discussion, no evidence for mislicence. --Krd 13:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hreinn Gudlaugsson (talk · contribs)
[edit]Permission is needed for these images. If you are the uploader, please see COM:OTRS for the procedure on getting permission for the images.
- File:Darius-jones.jpg
- File:Travis-Laplante.jpg
- File:Willie-Jones-III.jpg
- File:Tristan-Honsinger.jpg
- File:Steve-Noble.jpg
- File:Marcus-Rojas.jpg
- File:Peter-bernstein.jpg
- File:Steven-Bernstein.jpg
- File:Joey-Baron.jpg
- File:Jens-balder.jpg
- File:Line-Kruse.jpg
- File:Mads-tolling.jpg
- File:Ibrahim-Electric.jpg
- File:Günter-Sommer.jpg
- File:Jesper-zeuthen.jpg
- File:Please hg.gif
DLindsley Need something? 16:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is Hreinn Gudlaugsson commenting...
I am getting very tired of all the hindrances that are put in the way of me uploading pictures on Wikimedia Commons. I do this for the benefit of Wikipedia builders and Wikipedia users. It is getting on my nerves to be set on trial every time I upload a picture. Do you really think I am stealing pictures from the internet to upload in my own name? What would be the motive for such a act?! What would I achieve other than shame if I did so?
I like jazz music and I like photographing, so after I have been photographing for 10 years, I thought that I would share my interest and put the pictures out on the web for the inspiration and joy for someone out there.
I begin to wonder if that was a good idea after all. I assumed that the we, the Wikipedia volunteers, were building a better Wikipedia website, but so far I have only run in to someone who seems to want to tear down the work I have put in to uploading my pictures.
I seem to be wasting my time by defending myself and running into a "Kafka" like hindrances and accusations. For some time now I have pleaded not guilty and I have been asking people to investigate on the matter, but nobody seems to be listening.
I hope that the honorable judges (who ever they are) will reach a verdict as soon as possible because I have had enough of this nonsense.
Kind regards, Hreinn
- You need to understand that we are requiring permission for the images. Please email OTRS. I have told you this I believe twice already. DLindsley Need something? 17:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Hrein, here is an template for permission Commons:Email_templates. Send a mail for each picture to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --2003:4D:2C1F:7BE3:E17A:60F2:F663:7C46 07:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning that. DLindsley Need something? 12:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Hrein, here is an template for permission Commons:Email_templates. Send a mail for each picture to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. --2003:4D:2C1F:7BE3:E17A:60F2:F663:7C46 07:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment ticket:2014122910010725 has been received but not yet processed. --Krd 23:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
What does the latest comment mean? /Hreinn 13 January 2015
COMMENT on the license:
All the pictures are uploaded choosing the option that give this license:
"This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license." and all the files have a big CC sign. Am I doing something wrong choosing this option while uploading? Are these CC signs worthless?
Kind regards
Hreinn, 13 January 2015
My name is Kristinn Gudlaugsson and I can verify that my brother Hreinn has taken these pictures and he could never do such a thing as to steal pictures from the internet to publish in his own name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.216.23.44 (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately, he needs to send a free license of the images to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org as we are finding the "Own work" claims doubtful. DLindsley Need something? 22:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is getting more and more absurd: If I am a cheat and a fraud as someone seams to believe, then it helps if I send a free license permission once more (double cheating is double as good as one time cheating)! You can't upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons without a license agreement, therefore I don't understand why I must do it once more.
/Hreinn, 15 January 2015
- This is getting more and more absurd: If I am a cheat and a fraud as someone seams to believe, then it helps if I send a free license permission once more (double cheating is double as good as one time cheating)! You can't upload pictures to Wikimedia Commons without a license agreement, therefore I don't understand why I must do it once more.
This is Hreinn Gudlaugsson summing up the debate
There is quite a difference between the writings of the KEEP voters and the DELETE voters in this debate. The KEEP voters use arguments and the DELETE voters use doubts, assumptions and believes. It is commonly known that you can’t debate with believers, because they only see what they want to see. In spite of this I once more ask you to e mail the administrator for jazzfest.dk using this mail info@jazzfest.dk (att. Ilse Vestergaard) or my brother Kristinn Gudlaugsson <kristinn@hotmail.no> to verify that the photos are taken by me. One last option is this: come to Aarhus and see for yourself me photographing this concert http://fondenvoxhall.dk/koncerter/musik-aarhus-festival-jazz/ !!!
Kind regards, Hreinn, 15 January 2015
- Please send an e-mail to OTRS, that's faster than, say, creating + uploading the now deleted File:Please hg.gif. The OTRS volunteers will then manage it, e.g., arrange undeletion if necessary, and add OTRS tags to the pages. You need no witnesses for the OTRS procedure, it's a simple plausibility check for the archival of your permission. In theory anybody could claim to be or represent a famous photographer or celebrity on a Wiki page for odd purposes not limited to "license laundring", that's why OTRS exists. –Be..anyone (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Who has deleted these two files and why has it been done?
Hreinn, 15 January 2015
- Just click on the red link, it shows you who deleted these images why. If you follow the OTRS procedure list all your images incl. the deleted images in your permission, any deleted images will then be undeleted after an OTRS volunteer checked that somebody claiming to be you presumably really is you. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Consider this:
I have just finished uploading picture files to this Wikipedia site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einar_M%C3%A1r_Gu%C3%B0mundsson . As you can see there are 5 pictures all from the same event. Do you think it is possible to steal that many pictures from the same event from the web? This I just one more argument that I am taking these pictures. This is not the only site where I have uploaded several pictures from the same event, so what do you demolition people have to say to that argument?
Hreinn, 15 January 2015
- You are saying that we are demolition people? No, we are not demolition people. I am pretty sure that I have advised you before to just email OTRS. Otherwise, you would not have been making this situation as bad as it is. DLindsley Need something? 23:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I sent an email to OTRS yesterday, I have not received an answer yet.
Several times now I have asked, what good does it do to give an license permission to OTRS, when I already have given license permission during the uploading with the UploadWizard? So, I ask this question once more, why do I have to give license permission twice? Can anyone explain?
Maybe my tone has been a little harsh lately, it has been because I don't like to be labeled as a cheat and a fraud. THESE PHOTOS ARE TAKEN BY ME.
- I sent an email to OTRS yesterday, I have not received an answer yet.
Hreinn, 16 January 2015
Hreinn, I realise that it may be considered a bit burdensome to send the relevant OTRS, but it is important that all images on Commons have the necesary licenses. The OTRS procedure simply verifies that you are really "you". I do not doubt that "you" are "you" and I do not find all the above claims/allegations correct, however, if some users have doubts, the OTRS procedure is a fine way to have this sorted out. It would be a great pity to have the pictures deleted just for formal reasons. Pugilist (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment ticket:2014122910010725 has been received 12 January, but not yet processed. Admin Fastily seems to be somewhat ignorant deleting in such a situation.-- --5.10.176.162 17:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- "no permission since" is a timeout, if nothing happens, e.g., nobody flips this to a normal deletion request, admins are then supposed to delete the image. IMO that's correct, a later "undeletion" is no big effort. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Congratulation to the demolition People, you write this, "admins are supposed to delete the image", so my protests against deleting my images means nothing. Long live bureaucracy ( two more files deleted Steven-Bernstein.jpg and Marcus-Rojas.jpg). Hreinn 17 january 2015
---
Kept per OTRS permission. --Krd 14:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
According to YouTube's system, this video possibly has copyright audio. Copyrighted song: "Donkey Ride" Claimed by: [Merlin] Ninja Tune Ltd. I'm not sure if that song is copyrighted or not, but to be on the safe side I have nominated this file for deletion. Also, I have uploaded another version of this video without any audio. The Nature Box (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Just to add some more details, I have found the exact tune on YouTube. The artist appears to be Mr Scruff.-- The Nature Box (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXJG58PbvcY
Deleted: Copyvio per nom. Green Giant (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this performance was recorded prior to 1983. More recent official works are not in the public domain in Brazil. De728631 (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Speaking Portuguese:
- Este Hino é de 1919 e foi oficializado em 1983, como diz o site do Governo Estadual de Mato Grosso:[13].
- Nos termos de licença: {{PD-BrazilGov}} cita a (Lei nº 9610/1998, art. 8) que, ao meu entender, basta a obra ser oficial de um Governo, para ser de domínio público.
- E, na minha opinião, o maior motivo para exclusão deste Hino seria pelo fato de está escrito errado. Era para ser "Hino de Mato Grosso", e não "Hino do Mato Grosso".(Reconheço esse meu erro).
- Agora, humildemente peço: se realmente estou ferindo os termos de licença, é porque, provavelmente, não estou entendendo essa Lei. Então gostaria que me explicasse melhor sobre esse assunto.
--Porto Neto (talk) 02:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The copyright for music does not only depend on when the lyrics and notes were written but when this particular version was performed and recorded. De728631 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Automated translation: Os direitos autorais de música não depende apenas de quando as letras e notas foram escritos, mas quando esta versão especial foi realizada e registrada. De728631 (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The second law is not in use? - *"It is the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment.(Law 9610/1998, art. 8)"? Because the State Government website [14] says it is a decree.--Porto Neto (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is not about the text. The musical performance of the choir is also a copyrighted work, and this is the main obstacle here. A different choir and conductor could have interpreted the hymn in a different way, so the performance itself is copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- I understand. But everyone uses this version of the song (most likely without copyright) on sites like youtube, lyrics sites, hymns sites and no one ever complained of rights ... why can not a survey site like Wikipedia?--Porto Neto (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Most other uses of this particular song on Youtube or wherever are obviously illegal but have gone unnoticed. Wikimedia, however, takes copyright matters very serious so you would have to find a free version of the anthem. Just because other people do something wrong doesn't mean that you should do the same over here. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I give up. You won ... But my intentions were the best! I did not want to do anything wrong, but if that's what you say, then I'm sorry ... --Porto Neto (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- oh, a correction: "Understand" was to be "Understood" ... I think that English error made you think I had bad intentions .... and another thing, I cited the case of other sites like youtube not as a justification for the supposedly illegal action, but as a way of showing that copyright holders seem to allow this (because of the numerous times that the song appears).--Porto Neto (talk) 05:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Most other uses of this particular song on Youtube or wherever are obviously illegal but have gone unnoticed. Wikimedia, however, takes copyright matters very serious so you would have to find a free version of the anthem. Just because other people do something wrong doesn't mean that you should do the same over here. De728631 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- I understand. But everyone uses this version of the song (most likely without copyright) on sites like youtube, lyrics sites, hymns sites and no one ever complained of rights ... why can not a survey site like Wikipedia?--Porto Neto (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- This is not about the text. The musical performance of the choir is also a copyrighted work, and this is the main obstacle here. A different choir and conductor could have interpreted the hymn in a different way, so the performance itself is copyrightable. De728631 (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- The second law is not in use? - *"It is the text of a treaty, convention, law, decree, regulation, judicial decision, or other official enactment.(Law 9610/1998, art. 8)"? Because the State Government website [14] says it is a decree.--Porto Neto (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Now the discussion seems to have come to an end, I apologize for being so insistent or boring. I was just fighting for not deleting this file.--Porto Neto (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
And what about the other uploads regarding official anthems of Brazilian states and municipalities? Gunnex (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Vou falar português, já que eu vi que você Gunnex fala esta língua.
- Já lutei muito por esse arquivo do "Hino de Mato Grosso", só deu em uma discussão entre mim e o De728631, e a cada resposta dele eu perdia cada vez mais a razão. Então não vou discutir por todos meus arquivos, até porque, reconheço, vocês estão certos - só percebi depois da discussão que tive com o De728631, porque se eu soubesse disso antes, eu não teria feito esses uploads. Então, como faço para não perder esses arquivos?
- Devo enviar uma versão que esteja no site oficial do Governo do Estado (como fiz com alguns desses arquivos)?
- Devo enviar uma versão apenas instrumental?
- Devo enviar algum email para o site do Governo pedindo permissão para usar o som e depois envio para vocês como prova?
- Como o De728631 já disse, devo ir atrás de uma versão livre, mas quase nenhum site (nem os Oficiais de Governo) mostram se o arquivo está protegido ou não.
- Ou devo simplesmente assistir ao fim desses arquivos?
- Quero lembrar que não estudo e nem estudei Direito(Law), por isso estou apresentando várias dificuldades nesta área.
Aguardo respostas.--Porto Neto (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)- "Devo enviar uma versão que esteja no site oficial do Governo do Estado (como fiz com alguns desses arquivos)?" --> Só se for adequadamente licenciada e referenciada, indicando a fonte/autor/etc. (use {{LicenseReview}}).
- "Devo enviar uma versão apenas instrumental?" --> Isto não mude nada.
- "Devo enviar algum email para o site do Governo pedindo permissão para usar o som e depois envio para vocês como prova?" --> Pode tentar (antes de carregar o ficheiro), ver o procedimento via COM:OTRS (português).
- "Como o De728631 já disse, devo ir atrás de uma versão livre, mas quase nenhum site (nem os Oficiais de Governo) mostram se o arquivo está protegido ou não." --> Bom, existe p.ex. http://www.dominiopublico.gov.br com alguns hinos mas que na maioria já foram transferido para Commons, p. ex. Hino Nacional do Brasil. Ver também pt:Wikipédia:Recursos livres.
- "Ou devo simplesmente assistir ao fim desses arquivos?" --> Bem provável...
- Gunnex (talk) 09:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Obrigado! Boas respostas! Mas, se tiver algo mais que possa me ajudar, me fale por favor. --Porto Neto (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Posso usar isso {{LicenseReview}} em todos esses arquivos? Pois todos eles estão com fonte e autor... Vou colocar, se não estiver certo pode avisar que eu mesmo tiro.--Porto Neto (talk) 23:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. It doesn't matter whether Youtube, Facebook and other websites use material without caring about the copyright status. Commons cannot host such material unless it is PD or properly licensed. Green Giant (talk) 17:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I'm sorry.--Porto Neto (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Now a redirect. No links to it, it is too broad, and contains redundancy. Also, it is an unlikely search term. Alan Liefting (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
File:Esposizione Triennale di Arti Visive a Roma 2014 TiltEstetica Daniele Radini Tedeschi.jpg
[edit]
A smaller version of File:Esposizione Triennale di Arti Visive a Roma 2014 Tiltestetica Daniele Radini Tedeschi.jpg. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not only a smaller version of File:Esposizione Triennale di Arti Visive a Roma 2014 Tiltestetica Daniele Radini Tedeschi.jpg but, (if you look accurately at the different greatness and style of titles and writings on the coverbooks) a previous version of the art catalog's coverbook. However, if you want to delete the smaller photo, I do not oppose.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 14:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: and merged Green Giant (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims. Another map uploaded by this user and claimed to be entirely his or her own work was clearly marked "© 1988–1997 Microsoft and/or its suppliers. All rights reserved."
_Uyghurs_Capital.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- File:Bersilia.jpg
- File:Onoguria.jpg
- File:Map of Urumi in Ukraine.jpg
- File:Mapka znázorňující sídliská Kurikanu.jpg
- File:L.N. Gumilev, The Ancient Turks.png
- File:Wu-suns in 390ad.jpg
- File:Kimäk Iki-Imäk.jpg
- File:Chuej-mové.jpg
- File:Kimäcký kaganát v počátu.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted to make schedules in the categories of my uploaded files, but for my For additional identification and classification into categories I have for my ignorance of English and inattention, I questioned their mistake and apply to their deletion. apologized for it.
- I wanted to make schedules in the categories of my uploaded files, but for my For additional identification and classification into categories I have for my ignorance of English and inattention, I questioned their mistake and apply to their deletion. apologized for it.
Regarding the unlikely claim authorship and in no points. 1, 2, 3 - 5, 6, 7 .. I do not have to specify the limits of what is my work, and what is the work of other authors.
1. For a more detailed explanation will I appoint pictures that I created myself a present-studied material I have them also plotted.
- File:Bersilia.jpg
- File:Onoguria.jpg
- File:Map of Urumi in Ukraine.jpg
- File:Mapka znázorňující sídliská Kurikanu.jpg
- File:Location Ordu-Balıq (Kara Balgasun) Uyghurs Capital.png
- File:Mescit (architectural complex "Bulgaria") in Bilar from 10 to 11 Century.jpg
_in_Bilar_from_10_to_11_Century.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2. I appoint will paintings that although I withdrew from the net, but I edited them and highlight the contours and lines.
- File:L.N. Gumilev, The Ancient Turks.png
- File:Wu-suns in 390ad.jpg
- File:Kimäk Iki-Imäk.jpg
- File:Chuej-mové.jpg
3. Next, will I appoint paintings that I downloaded from the Wiki, and that I had to make a collage due to rules established cs. Wiki (can not be a collection of individual images - rules infobox).
- File:File:Oghuzové.jpg
- File:Famous Chuvash peoples.jpg
- File:Kazaši-osobnosti.jpg
- File:Kyrgyzové-osobnosti.jpg
- File:Turkméni-osobnosti.jpg
- File:Uzbeci-osobnosti.jpg
4. A more paintings that I downloaded from the net - Google, paintings.
- File:Kimäcký kaganát v počátu.jpg
- File:Ali-jabgu.jpg
- File:Qarluqwarior.png
- File:Wu-sunští lovci.png
- File:Tanguti.png
- File:Christian Urums.jpg
- File:Chara-balgas Ruins.jpg
- File:Bilär- sketch plan of the city from Alfred Khalikov.png
- File:Turkménská žena z Atalu.jpg
- File:Jubilejní koncert věnovaný 65. výročí ctěného umělce Turkmenistánu Recepa Abdyeva.jpg
- File:Excursions in Biljarsk.png
- File:Bilärské museum.png
- File:Svatý pramen.jpg
- File:Excursions in Biljarsk.png
5. Next, the picture which I downloaded from the Wiki, for example: az, ru
- File:Vlajka severních Sjung-nuů.gif
- File:Vlajka Říše Bílých Hunů.gif
- File:Vlajka Siung-nuské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Avarské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Chazarské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Ujgurské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Hunské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Říše Zlaté hordy.gif
- File:Vlajka Mughalské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Karachánské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Tímúrovské říše.gif
- File:Vlajka Gháznovské říše.gif
6. Photographed carpet to relatives and subsequently scanned.
7. Cover and page scanned from books, and then retouched....
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Thank you for your understanding.--Meliska (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I do understand, actually.
- "I wanted to make schedules in the categories of my uploaded files, but for my For additional identification and classification into categories I have for my ignorance of English and inattention, I questioned their mistake and apply to their deletion." – I'm guessing you're saying that you don't understand the difference between "This file is my own work" in English and "This file is not my own work" in English, and that this is the reason you claimed to have created maps that were in fact created by Microsoft and/or its suppliers, for example. The Upload Wizard is available in many different languages. Please make sure you have selected a language that you actually understand, and if you still don't understand what you can and cannot upload to Commons or what information you must provide, please ask other users who speak that language before uploading anything else.
- "I do not have to specify the limits of what is my work, and what is the work of other authors." – I'm guessing you're saying that you think you can upload content based on other people's work, and that you can claim to have created such works entirely on your own. That is not true. You can only upload works based on other works if the original work is free and you provide the source of the original work and comply with all licensing requirements. You cannot upload works based on non-free copyrighted works at all. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- In all consents, but there are pictures that I created myself (I think), and the following method:
- For example I think that if I download a map read from the net, and to draw in the best location of the village, so it would be my work: It's a map from MICROSOFT but programme Chronicle of of humanity 97 - File:Location Ordu-Balıq (Kara Balgasun) Uyghurs Capital.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.37.165 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- In all consents, but there are pictures that I created myself (I think), and the following method:
- No, modifying a non-free, copyrighted map does not magically "liberate" it from its original copyright holder and make it your own work. It's simply an unauthorised derivative work. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. and per uploaders admission of derivatives of copyright images. Green Giant (talk) 17:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not likely to be a "selfie". 4ing (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It's me, and the picture was taken by my father. Pitbullterrieren (talk) 08:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I corrected the information on the file page. The page originally said "Source Myself (I took it)". It is important that you are precise when you upload files. Please also note that you are not allowed to upload files taken by others unless they agree to it. --MGA73 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Currently not in use? --Sebari (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- It has only been used to vandalise no:Kim Jong-un. - 4ing (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused personal image. Please read COM:NOTHOST. Green Giant (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Already uploaded File:Bosnie-Herzégovine - Au nord de Mostar (7991827676).jpg Ma▀▄Ga 09:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: and merged as duplicates. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
scaled-down version of File:Zhukov Dmitro Valerijovich.jpg DmitTrix (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to larger file. Green Giant (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
An unused file cropped from File:Zhukov Dmitro Valerijovich.jpg; another, very similar cropped version already exists: File:Жуков-мини.jpg DmitTrix (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to duplicate. Green Giant (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
veraltetes Bild Semimbatic (talk) 13:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, veraltet allein ist kein Löschgrund. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No valid deletion reason given per deletion policy. Green Giant (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs with foreground objects). Stas (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (strong)
verygood quality and colours, no reasons for deletion. /St1995 21:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't insist on deletion, but I think that "very good quality" is about this or, at least, this. Stas (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with you. /St1995 22:55, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, not used. Yann (talk) 12:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- May be (potentially) used in any full moon-related theme. /St1995 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, better pictures exist. --Sebari (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Unlikely to be used unless someone wants a pic of the Moon with unidentifiable trees in the way. Green Giant (talk) 20:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Fichiers de l'utilisateur:Arthur Hou
[edit]- File:Le Culte du style, Marc Molk, 2013, huile et acrylique sur toile, 162 x 130 cm.jpg
- File:La Théorie des genres, Marc Molk, 2012, huile et acrylique sur toile, 162 x 130 cm.jpg
- File:La Vie d'artiste, Marc Molk, 2012, huile et acrylique sur toile, 100 x 81 cm.jpg
- File:L'île aux mimosas, Marc Molk, 2014, huile et acrylique sur toile, 162 x 130 cm.jpg
- File:Le coeur de Clémentine est une rose fânée, Marc Molk, 2014, Huile et acrylique sur toile, 81 x 100 cm.jpg
- File:La Libération sexuelle, Marc Molk, 2008, huile et acrylique sur toile, 130 x 195 cm.jpg
Copyright violation. --90.2.32.37 14:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence of permission from the artist. These files can only be restored through COM:OTRS. Green Giant (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
not used -- Jytim (talk) 14:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, I can't see any educational value. --Sebari (talk) 00:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, no educational uses. Green Giant (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
not being used -- Jytim (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep in use now --Sebari (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it is used on ko:표지 (unless someone is going to remove it). Even if it's not best quality, we don't seem to have a superior photograph that can show how and where the signs of this particular type are placed on streets in South Korea. whym (talk) 13:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per Sebari and Whym. Green Giant (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No authorization of the photographer. Furthermore, no indication it's a self-portrait. Low resolution. Dereckson (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The CC-BY-SA license was available online when I uploaded the photo (published by Jean-Christophe Chavanon aka Chaman'jo, 2014). genium ⟨✉⟩ 18:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's also your responsibility to take care and ensure it could really be licensed on noomiz.com under such license. Here, I've the feeling it could be a photography taken by a 3rd party. --Dereckson (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The file was clearly published by Jean-Christophe Chavanon along with the song Les anges under the CC-BY-SA license. genium ⟨✉⟩ 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, and that's the problem: how could we be sure it's an autoportrait or if not how could we find the author and be sure this photographer has authorized further redistribution under CC-BY? --Dereckson (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The file was clearly published by Jean-Christophe Chavanon along with the song Les anges under the CC-BY-SA license. genium ⟨✉⟩ 20:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but it's also your responsibility to take care and ensure it could really be licensed on noomiz.com under such license. Here, I've the feeling it could be a photography taken by a 3rd party. --Dereckson (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per precautionary principle because of the poster that uses the same base image. For the purposes of clarity, the onus is always on the uploader and those people who support keeping the image, to provide evidence per the evidence policy. There is no such onus on the nominator, apart from giving a reasonable explanation of why they think the image should be deleted. Green Giant (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Signed painting, thus painter not unknown. 4ing (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The name of the painter is not really readable ; we have searched for this painter for more paintings of this ship and did not find it. This french painting is more than 70 years old (signed 1941, and this boat sunk in 1944), so there is no more copyright for this painting.
I did the scan of this painting, and I have the authorization of the owners of this painting to publish it. We are in the same association to promote the ship wrecks in south of France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francois Guillon (talk • contribs)
- Comment I don't think the painter is really unknown. See [15] for more information. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The most important information has not been provided - the year the artist died. This work is affected by the URAA, so it is protected until at least 2036, unless someone obtains a license from the artist and/or the artists heirs. Green Giant (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Low-quality unused image with lots of better analogs (Category:Moon photographs with foreground objects). Stas (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (strong). Quality is not very good, but the composition is just wonderful. I don't see a reason to delete this photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stas1995 (talk • contribs)
- I'd see a reason to create a category:Photos by Hans Suter after this was deleted, but well. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality, not used. Yann (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- May be (potentially) used in any full moon-related theme. In gallery page for example. Quality is not very good but is not very bad. /St1995 18:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Terrible quality. --Sebari (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom, Yann and Sebari. Green Giant (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Missing evidence that this is anonymous. The source seems to be w:File:Crystal Palace F.C. 1921.jpg, which doesn't contain any evidence of anonymous authorship either. Stefan4 (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep If the author if unknown or there is no proof about who took the picture, isn't it an anonymous work? Fma12 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is only an anonymous work if the author is unknown. However, you need evidence that the author is unknown before you can upload the picture to Commons. Just the fact that a website has taken an image from an unspecified source without telling who the photographer is doesn't constitute evidence that the photographer is anonymous. For example, you would also have to take a look at the back of the photograph to see if a photographer is credited there. Commons:Deletion requests/File:1906 Eustace Fiennes MP.jpg contains some statements by User:MichaelMaggs about what you may have to do to establish evidence of anonymous authorship. --Stefan4 (talk) 18:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Stefan4 unless the necessary investigations are done as required by UK law to establish that this is in fact an anonymous work (unlikely). --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Also at w:File:DLML quiet study.jpg with conflicting copyright information. Missing evidence that the file is freely licensed. Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Green Giant (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hazmat2 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Logo. The logo seems too simple to meet the Threshold of originality. Amitie 10g (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Source website http://www.essenscia.be/en/disclaimer reads "Intellectual Property All texts, layouts, photos, films, graphics and elements of any kind on essenscia's website are protected by copyright. The publications, documents and information on this site may be reproduced, described and made available to the public for non-commercial purposes, provided that the source is specified." ... nonCommercial use prevents upload to Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The overall effect of the crescents is not simple, so this is above the TOO, in addition to the NC requirement identified by Ellin. Green Giant (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
It is claimed that the photographer died more than 50 years ago, but this seems to be a recent photograph. It is possible that the flag designer died more than 50 years ago, though. Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Delete; I initially understood it as being a scan from the tract (as if the tract had a photo of the flag flying), but it looks like the tract simply depicts the flag itself. Delete because there's no evidence of permission whatsoever for the photo, but if Presenttruth777 claims authorship, we should be safe; we'd need to check renewal records, but I doubt that religious tracts generally had copyright renewed. Nyttend (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Stefan and Nyttend. Green Giant (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This photograph (and all the others in this series) has bad provenance - it cannot have been taken in 2014, as its subject is a cleric who was murdered in 1982. It is credited to sajed.ir , a site claiming that its content is available under the GFDL. However, they give no details as to where the photos come from, and I've found at least some of "their" photos on other sites, minus the sajed.ir watermark. I therefore conclude that sajed.ir is engaged in (perhaps involuntary) license-washing, and that therefore none of their photos can be accepted on Commons. (Look how many deletions there have been on this uploader's other works!) DS (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Other photos in this series: file:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani7.jpg, file:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani6.jpg , File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani5.jpg, File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani4.jpg, File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani3.jpg, File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani2.jpg, and File:Ayatollah Ashrafi Esfehani1.jpg. DS (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- DS may be right. If these are indeed license-washing, this website should be added into the black list. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Images are not the own work of the uploader and may not be the own work of sajed.ir either. I received a note from the uploader on my Wikipedia talk page and replied to them on [their Wikipedia talk page]. I notice on the "uploads by new users page" that this account is marked as having received a final warning. Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: I want to use {{PD-Iran}}, etc. for these pictures.Hananeh.M.h
- @Hananeh.M.h: These are recent images, so these criteria do not apply here. Anyway, you need to know who is the photographer, when the pictures were taken, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Yann: No! this person was died in 1982 about 33 years ago! so this pictures that were took more than 30 years ago!
- According to Article 16 from Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers and Artists Rights :In the following cases images fall into public domain after 30 years from the date of publication or public presentation: Photographic or cinematographic works Hananeh.M.h
- @Hananeh.M.h: You need at least to fix the description of each picture: author and date. Thanks, Yann (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Hananeh.M.h: These are recent images, so these criteria do not apply here. Anyway, you need to know who is the photographer, when the pictures were taken, etc. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: I want to use {{PD-Iran}}, etc. for these pictures.Hananeh.M.h
- Looking at the text of the law itself (in a mediocre translation), it appears that photos are only in the public domain if they were published more than 30 years ago, or if the photographer (not the subject) died before 1980. Otherwise, the term is 50 years after the death of the photographer. You need either something to show they were actually published (before 1985), or to know who the photographer is (and when they died) to show these are PD. The website (from what I can tell, not actually reading the language) doesn't give any indication of any of that, and it really can't just be assumed. Revent (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Info Related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hananeh.M.h. Gunnex (talk) 22:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 太刻薄 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Designed by lenovo. PD-Textlogo. Amitie 10g (talk) 15:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete because I think the edges are not simple and thus this is above the TOO. Green Giant (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Already deleted rubin16 (talk) 11:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See source. PD-Textlogo? Amitie 10g (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio rubin16 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
We are in need of the information on the copyright status of the book, or whatever it is.
- File:Recorte monumento 18ene1927 ministro.jpg
- File:Recorte inauguracion monumento 18ene1927 ministro 002.jpg
- File:RECORTE DEL ARTICULO DE LA VANGUARDIA.jpg
- File:Recorte arredondo muerte abc 1 de ene 1925.jpg
- File:Recorte abc 1º mayo 1937 alli esta porque estuvo arredondo.jpg
- File:Recorte entrada en la acacemia 17may1908.jpg
DLindsley Need something? 16:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nominator rubin16 (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
バージョン更新した為 Ecoemi (talk) 04:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete, uploader request. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)- File:JESロゴ.jpg and File:無題.jpg, although the TIFF is larger. --Sebari (talk) 19:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader requested. Green Giant (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No longer used suggests it might be used again. There is some educational value in this image. Uploader requested deletions only apply within seven days of uploading or if there is a legal reason such as identifiable people. Green Giant (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No longer used suggests it might be used again. There is some educational value in this image. Uploader requested deletions only apply within seven days of uploading or if there is a legal reason such as identifiable people. Green Giant (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
not used anymore -- Jytim (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No longer used suggests it might be used again. There is some educational value in this image. Uploader requested deletions only apply within seven days of uploading or if there is a legal reason such as identifiable people. Green Giant (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
a screenshot from Hebrew wiki, unused. Same for File:Fdnew2.jpg, File:Fdnew3.jpg, File:Fdnew4.jpg, File:Fdoriginal3.jpg Pibwl (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. File:Fdnew1.jpg also contains a number of images, which should have their license status mentioned, even if they are PD. Green Giant (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
This statue was erected in 1950. It may or may not have a copyright notice. Either way, the image should not have been uploaded here. George Ho (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Don't forget to fix date + author when it's undeleted on Wikipedia. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The statue looks to be the same as the original statue of liberty, the only different is the brick plinth and garden around it. So I would claim that the statue is public domain and can be freely photographed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: It's not per User:Elcobbola/Models Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This replica was erected in 1997 at the time of the hotel's opening in Las Vegas. Now that this replica is copyrightable, the image should be deleted as well. George Ho (talk) 07:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- keep this replica statue looks exactly like the original one, so there is no copyrightable content in it. It is just as public domain as the copied statue. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Elcobbola/Models Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
According to Commons:Freedom of panorama#Philippines, a freedom of panorama is not allowed in the Philippines. This applies to the replica of the Statue of Liberty. George Ho (talk) 07:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, FoP isn't needed for a copy, if that's what it is (replica). –Be..anyone (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Elcobbola/Models Natuur12 (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Freedom of panorama does not apply to recent artistic works. The replica of the Statue of Liberty covered with the colors of the American flag and NY logo is an example. George Ho (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- File:New York Yankees Statue of Liberty 1.jpg should apply as well. --George Ho (talk) 07:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, the logo is de minimis, everything else is a copy. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User:Elcobbola/Models Natuur12 (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
A black and white version of this art is not needed, when we have the colour version File:Stefan Luchian - Autoportret05.JPG Nick Moreau (talk) 13:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Drawing is protected by copyright Esby (talk) 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Drawing on the left is by Plantu, I am trying to get permission for this file. Esby (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: After 1 month still no OTRS Natuur12 (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Also concerns:
- File:Rassemblement de soutien à Charlie Hebdo - 7 janvier 2015 - Toulon - P1980273.JPG
- File:Rassemblement de soutien à Charlie Hebdo - 7 janvier 2015 - Toulon - P1980271.JPG
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Drawing protected by copyright Esby (talk) 14:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- In normal times, I'd try to get permission from the people of Charlie Hebdo, but I guess they have other things to do right now than giving permission... Any opinions / ideas ? Esby (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep : en:First Amendment to the United States Constitution: [...] the freedom of speech [...] the freedom of the press [...] the right to peaceably assemble... Don't play the same dirty game as the ones who killed Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists! --Llann .\m/ (Lie 2 me ...) 20:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are way out of line. This is about copyright, not about freedom of speech. Also, these pictures were taken in France, so the US constitution means nothing. --Sebari (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: those photos are legit, the presence of protected elements in them is covered by an allowed exception to the 'droit d'auteur'. "L'utilisation dans un but d'information, d'une œuvre d'art graphique, plastique ou architecturale". (The usage of a protected work in an information goal/basis). Those photos are here to show the commemorations, if people brang issues of Charlie Hebdo or cover, it should be normal for those people to be photographied and those photography to be allowed to exist. In my opinion, this works similary to De Minimis, there are protected works in the composition, and you cannot crop on them the same way. Esby (talk) 09:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: There is no FOP in France and under the French law this certainly not qualifies as DM. Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Haruka Ayase
[edit]
whym (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment「File:Construction Curtain of Glico in 201409.JPG」について、この画像で主に映ってる物体は、宣伝用の看板ではなく、防音防塵用の工事幕で、著作権侵害には該当しないとの認識です。--Mc681 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- 今回は工事幕の上に著作物を載せたものとみなしたほうがいいのではないでしょうか。実用品と著作物に関する似た例として、イラストとしても成立するTシャツの図柄に関して著作物性が認められた「Tシャツ事件」という判例があるようです。[17]（33ページをご覧ください） 権利侵害であるかはどうか最終的には著者（権利所有者）の意思次第ですが、ウィキメディア・コモンズの方針として、明示的な許可が得られるまでは予防的措置として掲載しないことにしています（Commons:Licensing/ja）。 whym (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- なお、「恒常的に設置」に関しては引用が不適切でした（前掲のページでは、恒常的に設置する形態での複製は許可されないという文脈でこの表現が使われていました）。失礼しました。「原作品が屋外の場所に恒常的に設置されている美術の著作物、及び建築の著作物については、従来の社会的な慣行や、設置者の意思などを考慮して、法第４６条の規定により、権利者の利益を侵害するおそれの高い一定の利用行為を除いて、自由に利用できることとされています。」（作花文雄）に差しかえさせてください。 whym (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete 工事幕の性質上、恒常的でないと捉えます。 Not usable under COM:FOP#Japan, which requires the art to be permanently installed. The depicted art is a screen for only during construction work, and by definition, not permanently installed. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: See source. PD-Textlogo? Amitie 10g (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I would call this {{PD-textlogo}}. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: I can agree with that Natuur12 (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works of toys and models - see COM:TOYS, COM:CB and User:Elcobbola/Models
- File:Model car 26.JPG
- File:Model car 25.JPG
- File:Model car 24.JPG
- File:Model car 23.JPG
- File:Model car 22.JPG
- File:Model car 21.JPG
- File:Model car 20.JPG
- File:Model car 19.JPG
- File:Model car 18.JPG
- File:Model car 17.JPG
- File:Model car 16.JPG
- File:Model car 15.JPG
- File:Model car 14.JPG
- File:Model car 13.JPG
- File:Model car 12.JPG
- File:Model car 11.JPG
- File:Model car 10.JPG
- File:Model car 9.JPG
- File:Model car 8.JPG
- File:Model car 7.JPG
- File:Sürmene çakısı.JPG
- File:Model car 6.JPG
- File:Model truck.JPG
- File:Model car 5.JPG
- File:Model car 4.JPG
- File:Model car 3.JPG
- File:Model car 2.JPG
- File:Model car 1.JPG
- File:Model car.JPG
- File:Pirrhana.JPG
- File:Piranha balığı.JPG
- File:Piranha car.JPG
- File:Pirana.JPG
- File:Akrep.JPG
- File:Scorpion car.JPG
- File:Solar car 3.JPG
- File:Biohazard car.JPG
- File:Kuru kafa araba.JPG
- File:Kurukafa.JPG
- File:Kuru kafa.JPG
- File:Solar car 2.JPG
- File:Solar car.JPG
- File:Bonneville model car.JPG
- File:Plymouth model car.JPG
- File:Pontiac model car.JPG
- File:Attack unit.JPG
- File:Attack unit 2.JPG
- File:Yellow automobil 2.JPG
- File:Yellow automobil.JPG
- File:Three automobiles.JPG
- File:Five automobiles.JPG
- File:Four automobiles 3.JPG
- File:Two automobiles 2.JPG
- File:Two automobiles.JPG
- File:Four automobiles 2.JPG
- File:Four automobiles.JPG
- File:Bonneville 65.JPG
- File:Riviera 64 side.JPG
- File:Riviera 64.JPG
- File:Klasik 409 2.JPG
- File:Klasik 409.JPG
- File:Hotwheels 99.JPG
- File:Off track.JPG
- File:Nissan 370Z model.JPG
- File:Turuncu.JPG
- File:Köpekbalığı.JPG
- File:Porche black.JPG
- File:Camaro gold.JPG
- File:Jones 55.JPG
- File:Lacivert turuncu araba.JPG
- File:Minik ambulans.JPG
- File:Mavi ambulans.JPG
- File:Sarı uçak.JPG
- File:Uçak.JPG
- File:Araba 10.JPG
- File:Otomobil 9.JPG
- File:Otomobil 8.JPG
- File:Otomobil 7.JPG
- File:Otomobil 6.JPG
- File:Otomobil 5.JPG
- File:Otomobil 4.JPG
- File:Otomobil 3.JPG
- File:Otomobil 2.JPG
- File:Otomobil 1.JPG
- File:Otomobil.JPG
- File:Araba 9.JPG
- File:Araba 8.JPG
- File:Araba 7.JPG
- File:Araba 6.JPG
- File:Yeşil araba 3.JPG
- File:Yeşil araba 1.JPG
- File:Araba 5.JPG
- File:Araba 4.JPG
- File:Araba 3.JPG
- File:Araba 2.JPG
- File:Araba 1.JPG
- File:Sharky car.JPG
- File:Sharky 3.JPG
- File:Sharky 2.JPG
- File:Sharky 1.JPG
- File:McQueen peluş.JPG
- File:Dino valley vehicle.JPG
- File:Dino valley car.JPG
- File:Dino valley.JPG
- File:Racin car number 2.JPG
- File:King cat.JPG
- File:Small lovely.JPG
- File:Super brave.JPG
- File:Cool bats.JPG
- File:Hotwheels 4.JPG
- File:Hotwheels 3.JPG
- File:Hotwheels 1.JPG
- File:Baykuş.JPG
- File:Donald duck.JPG
- File:Miki fare.JPG
- File:Uzun saç.JPG
- File:Duffy duck.JPG
- File:Kara şirine 2.JPG
- File:Kara şirine.JPG
- File:Mırnav.JPG
- File:Davulcu.JPG
- File:Çikolata adam.JPG
- File:Kayıkçı.JPG
- File:Arslan.JPG
- File:Gargamel.JPG
- File:Şirine.JPG
- File:Iki helikopter.JPG
- File:Kamyu tractor.JPG
- File:Orange racing car.JPG
- File:Remote control two.JPG
- File:M qıq.JPG
- File:Red car mini.JPG
- File:Splat racer.JPG
- File:Bus red.JPG
- File:Sanderior formula one.JPG
- File:Fire engine mini.JPG
- File:Smartness speed.JPG
- File:Super blue.JPG
- File:Playskool green.JPG
- File:Rush super truck.JPG
- File:Red racing car.JPG
- File:Grey number one.JPG
- File:Red scorpion.JPG
- File:Red truck.JPG
- File:Monster VW.JPG
- File:Red car one.JPG
- File:Dodge remi.JPG
- File:Subaru model.JPG
- File:Blue light.JPG
- File:Red speed.JPG
- File:Üstü açık.JPG
- File:Kamyonet mavi.JPG
- File:Mavi arazi.JPG
- File:Dozer turuncu.JPG
- File:Chief 911.JPG
- File:Hazard squad vehicle.JPG
- File:Formula model.JPG
- File:British taxi.JPG
- File:Kamyonet yeşil.JPG
- File:Green thunder.JPG
- File:Ramon like.JPG
- File:Red car 1.JPG
- File:Hotwheels egg.JPG
- File:Blue speed.JPG
- File:King cobra.JPG
- File:Hotwheels 2.JPG
- File:Hotwheels.JPG
- File:Tank model.JPG
- File:White 28.JPG
- File:Super truck.JPG
- File:Taxi model.JPG
- File:Die cast 19.JPG
- File:Die cast 20.JPG
- File:Die cast 18.JPG
- File:Die cast 17.JPG
- File:Die cast 16.JPG
- File:Die cast 15.JPG
- File:Die cast 14.JPG
- File:Die cast 13.JPG
- File:Die cast 12.JPG
- File:Die cast 10.JPG
- File:Die cast 11.JPG
- File:Die cast 9.JPG
- File:Die cast 8.JPG
- File:Die cast 7.JPG
- File:Die cast 6.JPG
- File:Die cast 5.JPG
- File:Die cast 4.JPG
- File:Die cast 3.JPG
- File:Die cast 2.JPG
- File:Die cast 1.JPG
- File:G Pixel.JPG
- File:McQueen pofuduk.JPG
- File:Itfaiye 288.JPG
- File:Crane truck.JPG
- File:Antique cars 2.JPG
- File:Antique cars.JPG
- File:Tır dorse polis.JPG
- File:Yellow formula.JPG
- File:Winsome.JPG
- File:White police truck.JPG
- File:Red formula.JPG
- File:Green mcqueen.JPG
- File:London city sightseeing.JPG
- File:Beyaz polis arabası 5.JPG
- File:Beyaz polis arabası 4.JPG
- File:Beyaz polis arabası 3.JPG
- File:Beyaz polis arabası 2.JPG
- File:Beyaz polis arabası.JPG
- File:Yeşil mikser kamyon.JPG
- File:School bus model.JPG
- File:Sarı mikser kamyon.JPG
- File:Mavi polis arabası 2.JPG
- File:Mavi polis arabası.JPG
- File:Sarı helikopter.JPG
- File:Sarı kamyon 3.JPG
- File:Sarı itfaiye kamyonu.JPG
- File:Kırmızı çekici kamyon 2.JPG
- File:Kırmızı çekici kamyon.JPG
- File:Kırmızı itfaiye kamyonu.JPG
- File:Yeşil kamyon.JPG
- File:Mavi taşıyıcı.JPG
- File:Yeşil oyuncak araba.JPG
- File:Sarı kamyon 2.JPG
- File:Inek oyuncak.JPG
- File:Antilop.JPG
- File:Otobüs oyuncak.JPG
- File:Horoz.JPG
- File:Kara üzümler.JPG
- File:Fok balığı.JPG
- File:Top yeşil.JPG
- File:Mini cars.JPG
- File:Muzlar.JPG
- File:Inek model.JPG
- File:Zebra car.JPG
- File:Plastik araba 4.JPG
- File:Itfaiye eri.JPG
- File:Ördek model.JPG
- File:Süper araba.JPG
- File:Şato.JPG
- File:Plastik araba 3.JPG
- File:Askeri kamyonet.JPG
- File:Gokart aracı.JPG
- File:Taşıma.JPG
- File:Kahverengi at.JPG
- File:Şimşek makkuin 95.JPG
- File:Vinç 2.JPG
- File:Vinç.JPG
- File:Palmiye.JPG
- File:Plastik araba 2.JPG
- File:Sarı at.JPG
- File:Alacaat.JPG
- File:Toy dog.JPG
- File:Toy bus.JPG
- File:Red rescue.JPG
- File:Purple toy car.JPG
- File:Hudson hornet.JPG
- File:Savaş uçağı yeşil.JPG
- File:Karavan.JPG
- File:Yengeç.JPG
- File:Happy car.JPG
- File:Grey police car.JPG
- File:Cars Red.JPG
- File:Mater Tow.JPG
- File:Green toy car.JPG
- File:Orange die cast.JPG
- File:Engine 388A.JPG
- File:McQueen piston cup.JPG
- File:Traktör yeşil.JPG
- File:Cars sheriff.JPG
- File:McQueen Rush-soa.JPG
- File:McQueen 95.JPG
- File:Ambulance cute.JPG
- File:Savage green.JPG
- File:Speed challenge.JPG
- File:Plastik araba.JPG
- File:Savaş uçağı sarı.JPG
- File:Mikser 1.JPG
- File:Super turbo.JPG
- File:Racer dream.JPG
- File:Sally.JPG
- File:Super low floor bus.JPG
- File:Battle mission rescue.JPG
- File:Savaş uçağı kamuflaj.JPG
- File:Ambulance white.JPG
- File:Toy car part.JPG
- File:Miniart.JPG
- File:Yellow truck.JPG
- File:283467 military.JPG
- File:Racing max.JPG
- File:Rescue orange.JPG
- File:White car 427.JPG
- File:Racer blue car.JPG
- File:Tow Mater.JPG
- File:McQueen with hat.JPG
- File:Finn McMissile.JPG
- File:Blue truck.JPG
- File:Hotwheels black yellow.JPG
- File:Green wrangler.JPG
- File:Dinosaur purple.JPG
- File:Volvo model.JPG
- File:Firefighting jeep.JPG
- File:Mikser 2.JPG
- File:Mavi araba 7.JPG
- File:Savaş uçağı gri.JPG
- File:Junsheng.JPG
- File:Sky shark red 2.JPG
- File:Sky shark red.JPG
- File:Formula oyuncak.JPG
- File:Kırmızı tanker.JPG
- File:Kamyon turuncu.JPG
- File:Helikopter kırmızı.JPG
- File:Çekici oyuncak.JPG
- File:Kepçe oyuncak.JPG
- File:Miki uçak.JPG
- File:Sky shark.JPG
- File:Max-8.JPG
- File:Mikser.JPG
- File:Yeşil ördek.JPG
- File:Itfaiye aracı.JPG
- File:Polis minibüsü.JPG
- File:Taksi sarı.JPG
- File:Sarı tren.JPG
- File:Çekici kırmızı 2.JPG
- File:Kamyon sarı.JPG
- File:Otobüs yeşil.JPG
- File:Araba beyaz.JPG
- File:Araba kırmızı 2.JPG
- File:Araba kırmızı.JPG
- File:Araba sarı.JPG
- File:Piyano.JPG
- File:Çekici kırmızı.JPG
- File:Traktör.JPG
- File:Mavi tır.JPG
- File:Helikopter 09.JPG
- File:Helikopter 07.JPG
- File:Helikopter 08.JPG
- File:Helikopter 06.JPG
- File:Helikopter 05.JPG
- File:Helikopter 04.JPG
- File:Helikopter 03.JPG
- File:Helikopter 01.JPG
- File:Helikopter 02.JPG
- File:Uzay mekiği.JPG
- File:Kara tren.JPG
- File:Buz devri.JPG
- File:Sarı tekerlek.JPG
- File:Gri kaput.JPG
- File:Kumbara kermit.JPG
- File:Oyuncak köpek.JPG
- File:Timsah.JPG
- File:Yeşil savaş.JPG
- File:Tekne kırmızı.JPG
- File:Pilsan car 2.JPG
- File:Pilsan car.JPG
- File:Siyah cip.JPG
- File:Halk bank otomobil.JPG
- File:Halk bank car.JPG
- File:Polis uçağı.JPG
- File:Demir araba.JPG
- File:Grey toy cars.JPG
- File:Yellow toy cars.JPG
- File:Lizard vehicle.JPG
- File:Yellow school bus.JPG
- File:Toy train locomotive.JPG
- File:Halkbank arabası 3.JPG
- File:Halkbank arabası 2.JPG
- File:Taka.JPG
- File:Halkbank arabası.JPG
- File:Air power 2.JPG
- File:Air power.JPG
- File:Shelcore.JPG
- File:Pilsan.JPG
- File:Metro fire dept.JPG
- File:Fire engine toy.JPG
- File:Xr yellow.JPG
- File:Black ice auto service.JPG
- File:Deleux racer.JPG
- File:Polizei van.JPG
- File:Green caravan.JPG
- File:Rescue vehicle.JPG
- File:Super cars.JPG
- File:Bordo itfaiye.JPG
- File:Cip oyuncak.JPG
- File:Oyuncak motorsiklet 2.JPG
- File:Oyuncak motorsiklet 3.JPG
- File:Mor minibüs.JPG
- File:Oyuncak motorsiklet 4.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 1.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 3.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 2.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 4.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 5.JPG
- File:Oyuncak motorsiklet 5.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 6.JPG
- File:Çekici.JPG
- File:Sarı itfaiye.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 7.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 8.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 9.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 10.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 11.JPG
- File:Oyuncak kamyon 1.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 12.JPG
- File:Oyuncak kamyon 2.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 13.JPG
- File:Oyuncak kamyon 3.JPG
- File:Oyuncak araba 14.JPG
- File:Oyuncak tren.JPG
- File:Siyah çift kabin.JPG
- File:Mavi polis kamyonet.JPG
- File:Gri polis.JPG
- File:Sarı motorsiklet 2.JPG
- File:Gri itfaiye.JPG
- File:Kırmızı kamyon.JPG
- File:Sarı motorsiklet.JPG
- File:Kırmızı spor araba.JPG
- File:VW kırmızı minibüs.JPG
- File:Botlu kamyonet.JPG
- File:Mavi cip.JPG
- File:Kahverengi sedan araba.JPG
- File:Kamyonet.JPG
- File:Siyah cam.JPG
- File:Ambulans.JPG
- File:Turuncu cip.JPG
- File:Askeri tanker.JPG
- File:Itfaiye kamyonu 2.JPG
- File:Çekici kamyon 2.JPG
- File:Itfaiye otomobili.JPG
- File:Yeşil tekerlek.JPG
- File:Beyaz cip.JPG
- File:Çekici kamyon.JPG
- File:Kırmızı tekerlek.JPG
- File:Oyuncak tanker.JPG
- File:Oyuncak spor araba.JPG
- File:Yeşil cip.JPG
- File:Itfaiye kamyonu.JPG
- File:Itfaiye teknesi.JPG
- File:Oyuncak vagon.JPG
- File:Dozer.JPG
- File:Mor dinazor.JPG
- File:Turuncu dinazor.JPG
- File:Dinozor.JPG
- File:Dinazor.JPG
- File:Cip kırmızı.JPG
- File:Yeşil araba 2.JPG
- File:Mavi araba 2.JPG
- File:Kırmızı motorsiklet.JPG
- File:Skull hotwheels.JPG
- File:Oyuncak BMW 2.JPG
- File:VW minibüs.JPG
- File:Gırgır araba.JPG
- File:Jip.JPG
- File:Oyuncak motorsiklet.JPG
- File:Sarı spor araba.JPG
- File:Oyuncak BMW.JPG
- File:Dodge kamyonet.JPG
- File:Oyuncak mini cooper.JPG
- File:Mavi araba.JPG
- File:Yeşil tosbağa 2.JPG
- File:Yeşil tosbağa.JPG
- File:Yeşil spor araba 2.JPG
- File:Yeşil spor araba.JPG
- File:Kahverengi araba.JPG
- File:Sarı araba.JPG
- File:Lacivert araba.JPG
- File:Eflatun araba.JPG
- File:Spor araba 2.JPG
- File:Sarı tosbağa.JPG
- File:Mavi mekik.JPG
- File:Kırmızı uçak.JPG
- File:Oyuncak kamyon.JPG
- File:Çikolata araba.JPG
- File:Fıstık yeşili.JPG
- File:Ufo ülker.JPG
- File:Oyuncak uçak.JPG
- File:Savaş uçağı.JPG
- File:Yeşil uçak.JPG
- File:Roket füze.JPG
- File:Kırmızı tosbağa.JPG
- File:Spor araba.JPG
Эlcobbola talk 21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep File:Sürmene çakısı.JPG is NOT a toy. Vikiçizer (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- This may not be a toy, but are we confident the pattern is in the public domain? -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Vikiçizer, we could certainly separate File:Sürmene çakısı.JPG into its own DR, but it is still a derivative work of the pattern, as Pete F mentioned above - see COM:DW. Эlcobbola talk 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- This may not be a toy, but are we confident the pattern is in the public domain? -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- what about Category:Toy animals, Category:Britains toys, Category:Matchbox toys, Category:Toy trains, Category:Models of automobiles by brand, Category:Radio control units and others. Vikiçizer (talk) 21:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please do start a deletion request for any files or categories you think are copyright violations. If you want I can show you some easy ways to start a DR. -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- some files are NOT toy, please see every file one by one...Vikiçizer (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- and why only my files deleting, what about other same toy files...Vikiçizer (talk) 21:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- File:Choro-Q and Chibikko Choro-Q.jpg, File:Chorokyue.JPG, File:Chrysler me four twelve - Flickr - yjenith (5).jpg, File:K-32 Shovel Nose 1971 (1).jpg, File:Chrysler me four twelve - Flickr - yjenith (7).jpg and more...you must delete all toys files. i'm gonna find them all for you. Vikiçizer (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- These nominations happen daily, by the hundreds. Many other photos of toys have been deleted, and will be deleted. Please don't take it personally -- copyright is complicated. -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I have looked at about 15 of these and all appear to be copyright violations (unless there is some way to demonstrate that certain toys are in the public domain). -Pete F (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- I'm sad for toy files, they're gonna be deleted. Some toys are really antique toys. But OK, i understood, i learned, thanks a lot. (Pete F, please show me some easy ways, u can write my user talk)Vikiçizer (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 03:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Vodafone logo is copyrighted in the UK and the logo image is too big to be COM:De Minimis see COM:TOO UK.
Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --IronGargoyle (talk) 05:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to be "own work". I doubt the uploader's authorship due to the high quality of the image. DLindsley Need something? 15:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Question to DLinsley
Whathat do you mean by "due to the high quality of the image"?
Kind Regards Hreinn Gudlaugsson
- Hello. The image seems high quality to me in general, like in terms of restoring a really old show and making it in really good quality. We know that you are not happy that we are nominating your files for deletion, but permission is required for them and this one. Please see COM:OTRS for the procedure on getting permission for the images. DLindsley Need something? 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep and propose closing this request. The deletion criteria for this request is vague and not in line with Commons:Deletion policy.--Snaevar (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Still Delete. @Snaevar: Unfortunately, you are wrong. This seems to be in line with COM:D#Photographs of identifiable people. DLindsley Need something? 21:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Still
Deleted: I also doubt the 'own work' claim. If tue, it should be confirmed by following the procedure at COM:OTRS MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: Verified account. Yann (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
This is incorrectly said to be the 'own work' of Twofortnights. But that user simply made some shading modifications to the original image, modifications which have been lost in later versions. Where did the original map of the world come from, and who owns the copyright in it? The original upload page stated that the map was the 'own work' of Gorden Cheng, but presumably Gorden got it from somewhere. I have asked on his talk page. We need evidence of PD or a free licence for the originating map, as it has been used as the basis of many similar files - see here. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep If so, we can change the "author" to Gorden Cheng. Delecting is not a good choice. --Whisper of the heart (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- My point is that Gorden Chen is not the author of the original world map. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep it seems you had plenty of time to type up this useless deletion request but you didn't have a few seconds to look up the Category:Blank maps of the world without Antarctica where you would find the original map file File:No colonies blank world map.png. And yes you are right, it should state that the original author is User:Sesmith but the way you dealt with this, that you decided instead of either approaching me beforehand to try and work it out or trying to fix it yourself to file a deletion request as if it were some kind of spam or gross copyright violation is inexpiable. Wikimedia Commons is a project of humans and this lack of even a mere attempt to communicate before reaching for a cold bureaucratic tool saddens me more than words can describe.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wasn't aware of that file, and its existence isn't obvious to anyone looking at the file history of this image. No doubt you know of it, and of the user User:Sesmith, through your prior involvement, but bear in mind that others don't have that advantage. Had I known of User:Sesmith, I would naturally have left him a personal message, as I did Gorden Cheng after I'd seen from trawling through the file history that the original version was stated to be his authorship. Maybe you missed my message - right at the bottom of his talk page?
- Your reply, though, seems to raise a new problem: where did User:Sesmith get the base map from? I have asked on the talk page, but am not hopeful of a response as Sesmith has not been active here since 2007 and has no email enabled. We need evidence of PD or a free licence for the originating map.
- Don't worry, nobody is going to take this image in isolation and speedily delete it, but we should take some effort to ensure it is actually free. Once we know the original source we should update all the files that are based on it. I would be more than happy to take that on myself if needed. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to doubt that the original author is User:Sesmith? Such as a link to a similar file predating the original upload by Sesmith in 2007? If not I don't see any reason to doubt that he is the original author as stated back then. In that case the answer to your question where did he get it would probably be in his MS Paint program on his computer.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be most doubtful that the country outlines are the original artistic work of User:Sesmith. Unless the user is a professional cartographer the outlines were almost certainly traced from some base map, which I'm hoping we can show was in the public domain. You are aware that maps are 'artistic works' for copyright purposes, and are generally copyright-protected? See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. It's for that reason we can't trace country outlines from Google Maps, for example, though the base map here must have predated Google Maps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- We can philosophically presume that for any map on Wikimedia Commons and there are thousands of them, however this deletion request should be closed until there is an actual proof. As for country outlines, Google Maps hold no copyright over them if they are only interpreting the law because every interpretation of the law would give the same result, for example if you were to draw a border outline based on this [18] if you would do it right you would get the same result as anybody else who did it right, including Google. Anyhow, your deletion request is based solely on philosophizing and what ifs, but if we were to apply that logic as enough ground to remove files then most of the files on Commons could be removed because we could doubt anything, "I don't think you are the author of that photo" and unless there was a photo of that person taking that photo we would have to remove it. No, instead let's look for a proof, if there is no proof whatsoever only "I feel like there is something here" there can't be any sanction.--Twofortnights (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I would be most doubtful that the country outlines are the original artistic work of User:Sesmith. Unless the user is a professional cartographer the outlines were almost certainly traced from some base map, which I'm hoping we can show was in the public domain. You are aware that maps are 'artistic works' for copyright purposes, and are generally copyright-protected? See COM:CB#Maps & satellite imagery. It's for that reason we can't trace country outlines from Google Maps, for example, though the base map here must have predated Google Maps. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have any reason to doubt that the original author is User:Sesmith? Such as a link to a similar file predating the original upload by Sesmith in 2007? If not I don't see any reason to doubt that he is the original author as stated back then. In that case the answer to your question where did he get it would probably be in his MS Paint program on his computer.--Twofortnights (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The onus to present evidence is always on the uploader and those people who want to keep the image. I might be wrong but the oldest such map appears to be File:BlankMap-World-NoAntarctica.png which credits User:Vardion on English Wikipedia. I note that quite a few of the other maps in Category:Blank maps of the world without Antarctica are claimed as own work but clearly based on the same base map without any attribution. I don't have time at the moment but I think we need to clean up this category. Green Giant (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- ...a little exploration of file histories on here and Wikipedia suggests that the original might be File:BlankMap-World.png by Vardion, originally uploaded 8 December 2004. Opinions? Green Giant (talk) 18:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Comment I have credited the original author in the source field. I think we can close this as Keep. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Seems fixed. Natuur12 (talk) 19:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your vigilance, but both of these photographs are from my own camera. I had uploaded them onto facebook and now since we have created the Wiki page, we wanted to use them here too. Can you please advise how we are violating copyright?? Many thanks, Hoss82
- Keep per User:Hoss82, versions found by Google Image search are smaller. --Sebari (talk) 00:56, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hoss82, please provide links to where these images are to be found on Facebook. In answer to your question, we assume that everything on the internet is copyright protected unless there is evidence of the image being in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Otherwise we wouldprobably go insane! Green Giant (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Seems okay. Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
- Mr. Jawhar Sircar Folio image and with the Indian Prime Minister have come from other websources: [[19]] reveals multiple uses of this image and the other one is also all over the web [20] possible COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:Mr Jawhar Sircar Folio.jpg
- File:Mr. Jawhar Sircar with Indian Prime Minister Mr. Manmohan Singh.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: as copyvios. AFBorchert (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Text document of questionable notability. Should be replaced with wiki-text if useful.
- File:A curated list of his works.pdf
- File:A curated list of Jawhar Sircar's works.pdf
- File:List of Works.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:Mr. Sircar.jpg
- File:Mr. Sircar.jpeg
- File:Mr. Sircar with Amartya Sen.jpg
- File:Mr. Sircar with Sharmila Tagore.jpg
- File:Mr. Sircar with Mr. Amitabh Bachchan.jpg
- File:Mr. Sircar with former Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh.jpg
- File:Mr. Sircar with the President of India.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 19:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a non-free crest and should not be hosted on the Commons. User:Fry1989 has twice removed speedy deletion tags from the image, though it's not clear why, so I am nominating for deletion. Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep It should be obvious why; I think it is too simple. The image consists of the badge of Tasmania which dates back to 1876, over a simple map of Tasmania, and a scouting fluer-de-lys. I see nothing copyrighted here. Fry1989 eh? 19:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete For the reasons Diannaa gives. In response to Fry1989, the composition can be copyrighted even when individual elements can't be. Also, the file Tasmania (Scouts Australia).png which is a photograph of a physical badge describes it as non-free. MjolnirPants (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is Diannaa has not given any reasons other than "I think this is non-free and idk why Fry would think otherwise". I have given reasons why I believe it is too simple, the elements are all certainly PD and the construction of the image is easily simple enough to have designed. There's nothing original here, nothing complicated, nothing copyrighted, there's no reason to delete it. As for the Wikipedia licensing for that file, it really doesn't mean anything of relevant value considering whoever uploaded it could have chosen from a myriad of available licenses. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is MjolnirPants, who created the image, has given reasons, so let's put that nonsense to bed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- They didn't create the image, they only re-created the image and have no rights to it once has been released on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 22:33, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is MjolnirPants, who created the image, has given reasons, so let's put that nonsense to bed.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The problem is Diannaa has not given any reasons other than "I think this is non-free and idk why Fry would think otherwise". I have given reasons why I believe it is too simple, the elements are all certainly PD and the construction of the image is easily simple enough to have designed. There's nothing original here, nothing complicated, nothing copyrighted, there's no reason to delete it. As for the Wikipedia licensing for that file, it really doesn't mean anything of relevant value considering whoever uploaded it could have chosen from a myriad of available licenses. Fry1989 eh? 00:02, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: I agree with Fry1989. Just simple shapes and an heraldic lion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- My reason for nominating the file for deletion is that I believe it is a non-free crest that should not be hosted on the Commons. It's a unique creation, not just simple shapes, and is copyrightable in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Move it to commons instead of deleting. Evrik (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- The file already is on Commons. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and MjolnirPants, who created the image and is requesting its deletion. Image exists at en:wp. Image components may separately be simple, but in that combination constitute a copyrighted logo.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- We do not delete images just because the uploader requests it. Once you have released an image to Commons, you have released any rights to it. The only reason to delete this is copyright and so far nobody has given any real reason to believe this is copyrighted. "I believe it is a non-free crest", what supports that claim??? Nothing so far. On the other hand, I have provided not just my opinion that this is PD but actual reasons why I believe so. Oh and as for your silly claim that MjolnirPants created the image and that means they get special rights, that's not even true because they simply re-created the image in SVG format for a graphic lab request. You want to talk about nonsense, pay attention to your own first. Fry1989 eh? 03:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- I would guess that this picture is fine per COM:COA#Public domain definition (blazon). The picture seems to contain four elements:
- Three circles: two white and one green.
- A map. Seems to have been drawn differently compared to w:File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).png.
- A fleur-de-lys. I can't tell if it has been drawn differently compared to w:File:Tasmania (Scouts Australia).png or not as the one in the PNG file is of too low quality.
- A lion, clearly drawn differently. A Google search for "lion passant" finds plenty of similar pictures of lions. --Stefan4 (talk) 01:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Kept: as per Stefan4. Natuur12 (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by True Tech Talk Time (talk · contribs)
[edit]The images can be founds elswhere, look highly professional. Unlikely to be the uploaders own work. com:PCP applies.
- File:DDR X2.png
- File:FunHaven DDR X2.JPG
- File:Wii mini.png
- File:CWTA Non-incumbent.png
- File:Cellpipe 7130.JPG
- File:Bell 4100.JPG
- File:Bell 3100.JPG
- File:Samsung C414.jpg
- File:HTC Radar 4G - WIND Mobile.JPG
- File:2Wire 2701.JPG
- File:SpeedStream 6520.JPG
- File:SpeedStream 6520 Derrière.JPG
- File:SpeedStream 5200.JPG
- File:Koodobooth.jpg
- File:Huawei U1250.jpg
Natuur12 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- See Special:ListFiles/True Tech Talk Time. Some might be own work, others could be copyvios. Please check them all. Trijnsteltalk 16:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. Please let me address all the claims. "The images can be founds elswhere," this is true, but the only one i personally uploaded elsewhere was the DDR X2 picture on my DDRX.ca site. look highly professional, why thank you! i put my best effort. Some of these, upon a closer look (such as , are not professionally made. For example, the Evan-Amos took a better Wii mini picture than mine. Unlikely to be the uploaders own work. That is false. All of these are mine. If you are concerned about things such as the company logos on the objects pictures, please let me know. Otherwise, they are all mine. Thanks. --True Tech Talk Time (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- @True Tech Talk Time, Policy requires that you send evidece that you are in fact the copyrightholder to OTRS. This is standard procedure when images are uploaded to Wikimedia Commons after they are published elswhere without a free license and in cases where the images are such high quality.
- @Trijnstel: I only nominated the suspicious ones.
- In general I suggest that we keep those DR open till OTRS receives evidence of permission since the images are great. Natuur12 (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Not that my comment would really matter as I presume communication with OTRS is already underway, but I see no reason that its unlikely for this to not be own work of the user. Sure some of the images can be found elsewhere, but these images have been on Commons and used in Wikipedia articles for years and I'd be more surprised if they weren't used elsewhere. Additonally EXIF data seems to show that the images were taken on either a Nikon Coolpix L100 or an LG E720 at a similar time to when the image was uploaded. EXIF data can of course be spoofed, but I don't think the uploader would really put that much effort into stealing a bunch of images. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep (Without having looked at all images:) Photos don't look very professional. EXIF checks out. No reason to assume those were not taken by the uploader. --Sebari (talk) 01:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. AGF. Yann (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)