Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/02/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(3887460204).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_and_their_properties.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-_Siavash_Kasrayi_(Left).jpg){kind=link}
![238 File:Perfume " Emoción de Soledad ".jpg](#File:Perfume_"_Emoción_de_Soledad_".jpg){kind=link}
![244 File:Nawis "El Ciclón Musical".PNG](#File:Nawis_"El_Ciclón_Musical".PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
..jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
*2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Found on many websites, hardly own work, missing EXIF and permission Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: should be CSD instead Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Found on many websites, hardly own work, missing EXIF and permission Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Should be CSD instead Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Video game cover with unclear copyright status. K-iczn (talk) 15:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
for safety 68.40.188.67 18:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: by User:Denniss. JuTa 18:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
useless promotional image from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheikh Zaman ll Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, by Denniss due to out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
useless promotional image from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheikh Zaman ll Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, by Denniss due to out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 20:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Also:
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheikh Zaman ll Dai Pritchard (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Dai Pritchard, when you make this kind of accusation, particularly from an account that has only 35 edits on Commons and no Commons User Page, it helps your credibility if you ensure that the link you give us actually works. The link is actually Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheikh Zaman ll. Also, we combine closely related DRs, as I have done here.
- Having been uploaded by a sock is not in itself a reason to delete images on Commons if they are useful. However, in this case it is clear that the images are fakes -- badly manipulated -- and I see no reason to keep them. Since the gallery is a user gallery for a banned person, I have deleted it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, by Jim and Denniss due to out of scope. Taivo (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Dodge Charger SXT Plus 2014 (100th Anniversary).jpg Bmwtoday (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Unless you provide a valid reason for deletion,
Speedy keep please. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: Didym (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
See You Again 100th Anniversary Image. Good Bye. 14.161.40.2 08:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep Non-sensical, invalid deletion rationale. ViperSnake151 (talk) 17:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Kept: per ViperSnake151. --Krd 19:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Image Wanted by OSX! 118.69.37.206 11:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Third non-sense and (possibly) vandalical DR!
- Are you actually OSX? If yes, please nominate with your account. If not, Speedy keep.
- Also this file is currently in use, so I'll request its semiprotection in the AN. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept, Just because a photo is wanted, this is not a reason to delete it. Rillke(q?) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational use. (I wish Commons had some kind of speedy deletion criteria to deal with this.) Keφr (keep talk here) 11:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: VOA upload. INeverCry 20:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
No foreseeable educational use. (I wish Commons had speedy deletion criteria for this.) Keφr (keep talk here) 11:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: VOA upload. INeverCry 20:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Hudson © Copyright 2014 Flat Out (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy, copyright violation JuTa 20:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Image claims the source is "from Facebook", which is not an appropriate license. It also appears to be a duplicate of the image that this image was extracted from, so most certainly a copyvio. G S Palmer (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete, uploaded by sock of banned User:SEFPRODUCTIONS. 63.241.40.124 20:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, source is Facebook. Taivo (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Book cover|Non-free book cover. Esetok (talk) 19:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, book covers are not allowed in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: speedied/copyvio as nominated, someone also speedied it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. copyvio Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dress Gate (talk · contribs)
[edit]Nonsense image used for a nonsense article in the English wiki. Out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akash30194 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Akash nimonkar abc6666.JPG
- File:Akash nimonkar abc555.JPG
- File:Akash nimonkar abc4.JPG
- File:Akash nimonkar abc2.JPG
- File:Akash nimonkar abc 1.jpg
- File:Akash nimonkar abc.jpg
Ies (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ratanak Dork (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chefgeardirect (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertising: out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 22:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ayrıntılı Bilgi as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright google scan The photo has camera data, but this is small file and the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I asked myself the same questions, but a search retuned no hit, there are camera data, and the creator may choose to upload a small size. — Racconish 📥 17:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- This photo belongs to this page. A photo of a potential candidate for elections. It is not free license. --Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, now I agree to delete the file speedily. Taivo (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation of Richard Hudson © Copyright 2014 Flat Out (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Hudson © Copyright 2014 Flat Out (talk) 12:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Richard Hudson © Copyright 2014 Flat Out (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Ellin Beltz Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Ad spam, out of scope Atlasowa (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Blatant spam. INeverCry 01:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
जोबनेर ज्वाला माता Mukesh Kumar Kumawat (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 10:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: uploaded on railwayz.info by a different user (Leonid Andronov) in 2008 (before it was uploaded on Wikimapia). In addition, the image was already deleted from Wikimapia NickK (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Anatoliy (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 03:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Sock upload. INeverCry 20:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Useless promotional photo from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SEFPRODUCTIONS Dai Pritchard (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. PD-textlogo? Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: changed license to {{PD-textlogo}}. JuTa 09:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Spain.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . JuTa 09:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. PD-textlogo? Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: changed the license to {{PD-textlogo}} JuTa 09:55, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Very controvertial picture currently used in Wikinews. If this file is actually a copyvio, it must be revewed by a human. Amitie 10g (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: yes, it is. JuTa 10:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Empty user subpage, please delete Noebu (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Changed to Speedy. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Taken from Ebay as per description OSX (talk • contributions) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Deleted not the work of the Flicker stream user to license as he did.--KTo288 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Taken from Ebay as per description and metadata OSX (talk • contributions) 00:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Deleted not the work of the Flicker stream user to license as he did.--KTo288 (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: Wikimedia is not the place to post your personal resumé. Basvb (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted out of scope.--KTo288 (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Its a typical Neplese folk song. A copyright one. File is not liked in any pages too. Ozonesn (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No evidence of license. (no source, no author, but nicense more that 8 year since it was uploaded those tags would have been moot) Josve05a (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Almost certainly a copyright violation; also, file is unused. What about the user's only other upload, File:Erich Gustav Huzenlaub.jpg? That one is used, but seems likely a copyright violation for the same reasons. -Pete F (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, better examples available. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, better examples available. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Biographies can be integrated into a Wikipedia article if they are on a notable subject. Basvb (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete Pibwl (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, better examples available of this car. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete and the rest below. Pibwl (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, better examples available of this car. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality, better examples available of this car. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Biographies can be integrated into a Wikipedia article if they are on a notable subject. Basvb (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Biographies can be integrated into a Wikipedia article if they are on a notable subject. Basvb (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Resumes are generally not an addition to the goals of any Wikimedia project. Basvb (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Resumes are generally not an addition to the goals of any Wikimedia project. Basvb (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted Commons is not a free webhost.--KTo288 (talk) 20:58, 5 March 2015 (UTC)€
Out of commons:scope: Wikimedia is not the place to post your personal resumé. Basvb (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: Biographies on notable subjects should be integrated into a wikiarticle. Basvb (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 01:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of commons:scope: Plain text file, if on a notable subject should be integrated with wikipedia article Basvb (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 01:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal images.
- File:Me ereer3.jpg
- File:2014-05-29 08.55.29 eqroqrpqer.jpg
- File:Redi8lqpq.jpg
- File:944247 605856162792131 686425192 n eee3aqrere.jpg
- File:581658 603748469669567 2056059129 nadre.jpg
Basvb (talk) 01:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unlikely own work Basvb (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexanndru romania (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of commons:scope: unused personal images.
- File:ALEXANNDRU si colega lui, Lena.jpg
- File:ZAZZA Best of.jpg
- File:ZAZZA Tour 2008.jpg
- File:ZAZZA by Catalin Eremia.jpg
- File:ZAZZA TOUR.png
- File:ALEXANNDRU Love.jpg
- File:ALEXANNDRU I'm an artist and I express myself.jpg
- File:ALEXANNDRU Gold Night.jpg
- File:ALEXANNDRU Gala.png
- File:ALEXANNDRU Danseaza toata tara.jpg
- File:ALEXANNDRU The VIRGIN Tour.jpg
- File:ALEXANNDRU.png
Basvb (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unused personal image Basvb (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope: unused personal image. Basvb (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality. Better versions available of this car. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality image OSX (talk • contributions) 01:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality image, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality , better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spacekatgal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of commons:scope: unused personal images.
- File:Brianna Avatar.jpg
- File:Brianna Arcade.jpg
- File:Brianna Motorcycle.jpg
- File:Brianna.jpg
- File:Brianna Wu Scooter.jpg
- File:Brianna 1.jpg
Basvb (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment File:Brianna.jpg is currently in use on English Wikipedia in a high visibility article, so I oppose deletion of that image. Cullen328 (talk) 02:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see that it was added after the nomination. However it does show that the images are on a notable subject, and as such out of scope does not apply. Basvb (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all for lack of sourcing information unless we can verify that these images were indeed uploaded by the person they depict, en:Brianna Wu. She is a professional writer and videogame developer, and I find it difficult to believe that she would just have uploaded a grab-bag of unprofessional low-res snapshots with almost no description if she were intent on providing photos of herself to Commons. Sandstein (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't look for that but you might be correct. here is a October 2014 source for Brianna Avatar.jpg (indicating possible copyvio). And here we find a November 2012 interview with Brianna Wu Scooter.jpg (indicating another possible copyvio). Mvg, Basvb (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PRP. INeverCry 00:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: File currently in use; quality does not matter. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced now by the same car in this photo: File:Opel Vectra B facelift China 2014-04-16.jpg. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: File currently in use; quality does not matter. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced now by the same car in this photo: File:Kia Pride silver vl.jpg. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: File currently in use; quality does not matter. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced now by the same car in this photo: File:Ford Fiesta IV 20090614 front.JPG. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, better versions available. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 02:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
watermarked picture, possible copyvio Motopark (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Likely to be a copyright violation: low resolution available at Wikimania under cc-by-sa, although higher resolution by a different uploader is available at Panoramio as All rights reserved NickK (talk) 02:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have no idea... I just removed the timestamp.--Carnby (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Likely to be a copyright violation: low resolution available at Wikimania under cc-by-sa, although higher resolution by a different uploader is available at Panoramio as All rights reserved NickK (talk) 02:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 02:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of a copyrighted image. Freedom of panorama does not apply as this is not a permanent installation. —Wuzur 02:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir
[edit]Derivative work of a copyrighted bridge, COM:FOP does not apply in France.
- File:La passerelle (4915496886).jpg
- File:La Seine à Bercy (Paris) (10410959146).jpg
- File:Les Dessous de Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir.jpg
- File:Paris 2012 - Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir.jpg
- File:Paris Passerelle Beauvoir 2014.jpg
- File:Passerelle Bercy-Tolbiac détail.jpg
- File:Passerelle MK2, Paris June 2014.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir - Panorama.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir 2.JPG
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir 2006.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir sur la Seine1.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir sur la Seine2.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir vue de Bercy.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir à Bercy.JPG
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir, Paris October 2014 001.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir, Paris October 2014 002.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone de Beauvoir.JPG
- File:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir 2006.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir April 2011.jpg
- File:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir October 2011.JPG
- File:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir.jpg
- File:Passerelle-bercy-tolbiac-transport.jpg
- File:PC200043 Paris XIII passerelle Bercy reduct.jpg
- File:Peniche-sous-la-passerelle-.jpg
- File:Simone de Beauvoir Footbridge 2007.jpg
- File:Sur la passerelle Simone de Beauvoir (4746139094).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(10410959146).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—Wuzur 03:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I uploaded File:Passerelle Simone-de-Beauvoir October 2011.JPG and agree that it should be deleted Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 03:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I mistakenly uploaded this with the wrong name, and immediately reuploaded it with the name I had intended to use. It seemed simpler to reupload and delete the misnamed dupe than to go through a move. Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 03:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Per COM:NOTHOST. Eurodyne (talk) 03:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eurodyne as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Web image http://godisruptive.com/experto/images/productos/001907.jpg COM:PACKAGING? Jianhui67 talk★contribs 03:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Original file was deleted due to copyvio. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused logo Josve05a (talk) 04:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete COM:SCOPE, No clear educational purpose. -Pete F (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_(3887460204).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(3887460204).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low quality OSX (talk • contributions) 05:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
_(3887460204).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_(3887460204).jpg){kind=link}
Unused personal image. Out of COM:SCOPE. Eurodyne (talk) 06:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is not Rutherford B. Hayes. The source link is also bogus. Scewing (talk) 06:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Found on many websites, low resolution, missing EXIF - possible copyvio. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Djregidio2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of project scope.
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Merycostanl (talk · contribs)
[edit]Movie covers, not own work, found on many websites, missing EXIF, missing permission
- File:Sobrino del mago.jpg
- File:La ulima batalla.jpg
- File:Caballo y muchacho.jpg
- File:La travesia.jpg
- File:Silla de plata.jpg
- File:Principe caspian.jpg
- File:Leon, bruja y ag¡rmario.jpg
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Lack of EXIF data and presence of watermark suggests the uploader is most likely not the copyright holder of this image, as stated in the description. —Andrei S. Talk 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
S-au facut corectiile de copyright.
 | Proposed close: Deleted ~~~~  Done Closed per proposal. |
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
A poorly composed photo of some unidentified people in an unknown location and therefore of no educational use. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photos, out of project scope and see COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Sonyk Boy RC,..gif
- File:Sonyk Boy RC,.jpg
- File:Sonyk Boy RC..jpg
- File:Sonyk Boy...jpg
- File:Sonyk Boy..jpg
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Ошибка в границах г. Ишимбая NDV (talk) 08:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photos, out of project scope.
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 08:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete Copyvio anyway [1] Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sergio mac- deparasol (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos, out of project scope and see COM:NOTHOST.
- File:Sergio mac deparasol--.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol novia-.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol club de fans-.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol-.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol novia.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol club de fans.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol ensayo.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol estilo.JPG
- File:Sergio mac bateria deparasol.jpg
- File:Sergio Mac baterista Mexicano.jpg
- File:Sergio Mac baterista.jpg
- File:Sergio Mac deparasol.jpg
- File:Sergio mac deparasol baterista.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol rock Indie.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol baterista latino.JPG
- File:Sergio mac de Deparasol.JPG
- File:Sergio mac baterista en deparasol.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol rock indie.JPG
- File:Sergio mac baterista.JPG
- File:Sergio mac baterista en Deparasol.JPG
- File:Sergio mac baterista deparasol.JPG
- File:Sergio mac deparasol.JPG
- File:Sergio mac.JPG
- File:Sergio Mac.JPG
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is 2008 building, but there is no freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan.
Это моше построено в 2008. В Казахстане нет свободы панорамы и эта фотография нарушает авторские права архитектора. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama in Spain includes the caveat that the law "may not be so interpreted that they could be applied in a manner capable of unreasonably prejudicing the legitimate interests of the author or adversely affecting the normal exploitation of the works to which they refer." This graffiti cartoon is a direct derivative of a Futurama character, itself a work for hire for Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation, allowing this image to be reused for any commercial purpose (such as being printed on a teeshirt) does have the potential to adversely affect the normal exploitation of the work. Fæ (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
These are all modern buildings, but there is no freedom of panorama in Kazakhstan.
В Казахстане нет свободы панорамы и эти фотографии нарушают авторские права архитекторов. Все эти здании новые. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No FOP in Kazakhstan Elisfkc (talk) 15:40, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, licensereview of one source file failed: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Astana Panoramic.jpg. Taivo (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Do not restore "Category:Kazakhstani FOP cases/deleted": photo with questionable licensing, pointless to be restored if ever FOP is introduced in Kazakhstan. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
i uploded it for error Giacomanni (talk) 09:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
uploded for error Giacomanni (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely own work. Uploaded in 2012 by Snow-surf (talk · contributions · Statistics) this file was cropped from http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=71888421&postcount=2677 (2011, by "WallyP") = http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/7620/recgk.jpg (404). See also Google I and II. Gunnex (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Per en:File talk:Sritattvanidhi - mālāsana.jpg. Edgars2007 (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Agree per talkpage. Joshua Jonathan (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Very unlikely that this is own work. Suspect that this is a copyvio Gbawden (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unsourced, not necessarily PD Zoupan (talk) 10:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Photos of replicas of copyrighted works by w:Constantin Brâncuși. —Andrei S. Talk 11:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope? Gbawden (talk) 11:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Elisardojm as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Not freedom of panorama at interior buildings in Spain Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I tagged it incorrectly, really it's a copyvio because it's a photo of an interior building and it does't permitted in spanish freedom of panorama legislation. Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No proof this file is free? There is no record linked to the file saying its open-source. And its surely not CC-BY-SA for the Commons user. Abigor talk 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Slightly unrelated question: is there even any evidence ISIS uses this emblem? I have never seen it being used by any ISIS media. They don't seem to use it in their videos (they do use the flag and other logo's), and I can't find any use of this emblem on the internet (in articles and such) from prior to the upload date of this file. Woodcutterty (talk) 12:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 11:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Non-trivial logo. There is no evidence that it's in the public domain. Juggler2005 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Image seems to be Photography of a mural. Unknown if the mural is copyrighted. DerHandelsreisende (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Jahoe (talk) 12:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope. Unused personal image. Jahoe (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Entirely aside from the question of the authorship of the drawing (which remains up in the air), the drawing itself is clearly a derivative work of the photograph shown at http://yle.fi/uutiset/leif_rantala_japman/7727787 which does not have a free license. Even if we had a satisfactory license from the artist who created the drawing, we cannot keep it without a license from the photographer. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I will be changing this artwork from underived material soon. You may delete it if the community believes that it is unjust and unworthy. My Fair Use rational for this media is that:
- 1) Object created was for non-commercial use only
- 2) Educational purposes only
- 3) Source material was scarce already to achieve so derivitave works was a necessity to obtained with no malice of infringement or exploitation that will be detrimental to the copyright holder.
- The intention is to make the topic significant with the subject matters image.
- Fair use is not permitted on Commons. Non-commercial use is not permitted on Commons or any WMF project.. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:46, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and the reply by the uploder. Not possible to keep in Commons. Jee 11:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
copyright violation Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pampa Assessoria (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertising: out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No longer required Greyschoolshorts (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soulaymane abidi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Soulaymane abidi and mouna fettou.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec le ami oussama ben jelloun.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec un grand acteur.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec le grand chanteur abdelwahab doukkali.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi and sanae akroud.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi and oussama balga dans le festival national du film.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec la grand artiste amal atrache dans une rencontre.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec le ami hamid nider.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec malika el ammari.jpg
- File:Soulaymane abidi avec deux amis (stars) dans le festival National du film.jpg
_dans_le_festival_National_du_film.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soulaymane abidi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, uncertain copyright, may be out of scope.
Yann (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
redirect with no added value and very unlikely to be used at all - and the word "protestors" is spelled incorrectly! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 13:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that it was published prior to January 1, 1923. Juggler2005 (talk) 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment: Where is the evidence the picture has not been published before 1923? The description says the painting has been made between 1920-1921 with unknown author (and then unknown actual date of publication). Also, Elia di San Clemente died in 1927. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. INeverCry 00:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Historical photos with unclear copyright status.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Juggler2005 (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:31, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Historical photos with unclear copyright status.
- File:Nang Nagn Kying Tong2.jpg
- File:PL 008.jpg
- File:PL 007.jpg
- File:PL 005.jpg
- File:PL 006.jpg
- File:PL 004.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David Alcocer Itza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promo, see w:es:Usuario discusión:David Alcocer Itza.
- File:Dey Vlogs.png
- File:Especial Deyvlogs.jpg
- File:David joel.jpg
- File:Colectivo tv.jpg
- File:Grande Dey.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG anyway. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danny150389 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG anyway.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it vandalism? Here is Currie Dixon: [2]. And Google shows something strange: [3].
Juggler2005 (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HarryTrung (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsitent resolutions, missing EXIF/different cameras.
- File:TOPIO DIO.jpg
- File:SketRobo TOSY.jpg
- File:AFO TOSY.JPG
- File:AFO with kids.jpg
- File:AFO kids.JPG
- File:Con quay TOSY.JPG
- File:TOOP.jpg
- File:Guinness World Records for the longest-running mechanical spinning top.jpg
- File:AU0W9968 copy.jpg
- File:HHZ 1615.JPG
- File:DiscoRobo with kids.jpg
- File:DiscoRobo 1.0.jpg
- File:Công nhân TOSY.png
- File:TyreRobo.jpg
- File:BallRobo.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 3.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 2.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 1.0.jpg
- This one is a duplicate of File:TOPIO 1.0.jpg. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 12:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HarryTrung (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Seems re-uploaded after similar request.
- File:TOSY TyreRobo.jpg
- File:TOSY BallRobo.jpg
- File:TOSY TOOP Guinness.jpg
- File:TOSY TOOP 2.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOOP 1.0.jpg
- File:TOSY Disco 3.0.jpg
- File:TOSY Disco 1.0.jpg
- File:TOSY Disco 2.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO Dio.jpg
- File:TOSY SketRobo.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 2.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO1.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 1.0.png
- File:SketRobo.jpg
- File:IREX 2007.jpg
- File:Spielwarenmesse 2009.jpg
- File:CES 2012.jpg
- File:2010 AUTOMATICA.jpg
- File:TOSY headquarter.jpg
- File:AFO with kids (1).jpg
- File:AFO with kids (2).jpg
- File:AFO Playing.JPG
- File:Parallel robot (2).jpg
- File:Scara Robot.jpg
- File:Parallel robot.jpg
- File:Arm Robot.jpg
- File:MRobo with Derek Hough.jpg
- File:MRobo TOSY.JPG
- File:MRobo Justin Bieber.jpg
- File:MRobot TOSY (2).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HarryTrung (talk · contribs)
[edit]some obvious copyright violations, the rest is probably also not own work
- File:TOPIO2.0.jpg
- File:MRobo CES 2012.JPG
- File:Automatica2010.jpg
- File:Spielwarenmesse 2009.jpg
- File:IREX 2007 TOSY.jpg
- File:TOSY Headquarter.JPG
- File:DiscoRobo TOSY.JPG
- File:Đĩa Bay AFO TOSY.jpg
- File:Con Quay TOOP.JPG
- File:Các sản phẩm robot công nghiệp của TOSY.jpg
- File:AFO designs.jpg
- File:TOOP with kids.jpg
- File:DiscoRobo with kids.JPG
- File:TOSY TOPIO 2.0.jpg
- File:TOSY TOPIO 1.0.jpg
- File:MRobo duo.JPG
- File:MRobo with Derek Hough.jpg
- File:New York Toy Fair 2011.jpg
- File:Automatica 2010.jpg
- File:IREX 2007.jpg
- File:TOSY factory.jpg
- File:DiscoRobo mascot.jpg
Didym (talk) 19:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete After Didym nominated these files for deletion, Harry Trung uploaded new files and got blocked for that for 3 months. Taivo (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 08:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Historical newspapers. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:The Independent (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Hospital Saturday News (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Chronicle (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blackheath Beacon (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Mountaineer (2) (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Mountain Daily (2) (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Mountain Daily (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Enterprise (newspaper).jpg
- File:Katoomba City News (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blackheath Bulletin (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountain Gazette.jpg
- File:The Mountaineer (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Katoomba Daily(2) (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Katoomba Daily (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountains Star (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountain Star (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountains Times (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountains Courier (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Blue Mountains Advertiser (newspaper).jpg
- File:The Katoomba Times (newspaper).jpg
- File:Katoomba Times.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(newspaper).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(newspaper).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}
_(newspaper).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}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 03:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Historical photo and newspaper, not own work. Proper license tag should be used.
- File:Front page of the Blue Mountains Advertiser, Friday, January 19, 1940..jpg
- File:Blue Mountains Advertiser.jpg
- File:Government House, Sydney.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused flag which should be in SVG. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replaced by Arno Votteler, 030.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replaced by Arno Votteler, 031.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replaced by Arno Votteler, 033.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
replaced by Arno Votteler, 032.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhardwajanand (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos.
- File:Anand in on goa trip.JPG
- File:Anand is goa trip gone.JPG
- File:Anand is going to goa trip.JPG
- File:Goa Trip.JPG
Juggler2005 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Morocco.svg. Fry1989 eh? 04:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Morocco.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Tiny duplicate of File:Flag of Morocco.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted (again). --P 1 9 9 ✉ 01:19, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Morocco.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Berber flag.svg. Fry1989 eh? 15:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
There is freedom of panorama in USA only for architecture, but not for sculpture. The photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 17:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photos are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Images appear to be taken from the internet and not user's "own work" as claimed.
- File:เสาธงส.ป..jpg
- File:เสาธง.jpg
- File:ประดู่บาน.jpg
- File:อาคารเรียน6.jpg
- File:สสวย.jpg
- File:ส.ป.ไง.png
- File:ฟ้าเหลือง.jpg
- File:สมุทรปราการในอดีต.jpg
Senator2029 ➔ “Talk” 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Flickr user just signed up; No EXIF data; not likely to be own work. 1989 17:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:55, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gyanendra singh tomar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal pictures. Out of scope
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 13.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 11.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 12.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 10.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 8.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 9.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 7.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 6.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 5.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 4.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 3.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 2.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar 1.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh tomar.jpg
- File:Gyanendra singh.jpg
Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Gyanendra singh tomar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Gyanendra singh b.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh a.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 7.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 6.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh,.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh'.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh t.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh,,.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 5.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 4.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 2.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 3.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh 1.JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh ....JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh ...JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh ..JPG
- File:Gyanendra singh.JPG
Ies (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 00:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
text image - a screen print from some editor - out of scope, unused, no cat. Similar is the socond upload File:Le sablier de la Pédagogie de l'intégration.png, although it might be more useful. Pibwl (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
doubtful authorship - thumbnail size, sole upload (although the photo is used in article) Pibwl (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unusable thumbnail, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
questionable authorship - no Exif, sole upload, mediocre quality. The person might be not enclyclopaedic (seems that she is an Russian author of a book about school organization, no Wikipedia article) Pibwl (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unused logo of questionable notability, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
pdf book, seems out of scope, sole upload, no closer info about the author Pibwl (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
doesn't seem to be in scope, no cat. Also rest of uploads: File:Sans titre-45.jpg, File:Tous les problèmes ont une solution.jpg Pibwl (talk) 18:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unused text image, no cat. Pibwl (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_and_their_properties.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_and_their_properties.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
data table scan - should be given as a referenced text Pibwl (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
_and_their_properties.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_and_their_properties.jpg){kind=link}
No license given for depicted work. Kelly (talk) 18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
autopromotion of some Russian furniture factory. Same for File:Rosa-green-h-01.jpg. Other uploads might be useful... Pibwl (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
out of scope text image Pibwl (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
graffiti - doesn't seem to be in scope, sole upload. Pibwl (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. All files seems to be taken from https://chicafabrica.bandpage.com/ (see also "Photos") which is "© Chica Fábrica". Uploaded in a row on 23.10.2013 for es:Chica Fábrica the exif's available indicates to works by "LAURA ZORRILLA". Example:
- File:ChicaFabrica.jpg --> previously published via https://chicafabrica.bandpage.com/ = (higher res, identical exif) https://s3.amazonaws.com/rootmusic-images/65/9074/144111712839163904/1351786165/image.jpg (last modified: 2012)
- File:Chica Fábrica Live.jpg --> previously published via https://chicafabrica.bandpage.com/ (click on "Photos") = (identical exif) https://u.bandpagecdn.net/bandpage-photos/42/8952/144059036768157696/large.jpg (last modified: 2012)
- File:Chica Fabrica lunch.jpg --> previously published via https://chicafabrica.bandpage.com/ (click on "Photos") = (identical exif & res) https://u.bandpagecdn.net/bandpage-photos/94/3757/144058357634842624/large.jpg (last modified: 2012)
- etc.
Permission via COM:OTRS by "LAURA ZORRILLA" needed.
- File:ChicaFabrica.jpg
- File:Chica Fábrica Live.jpg
- File:Chica Fábrica Festival 21 grados 2011.jpg
- File:Chica Fabrica lunch.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a screenshot of a video. No useful source information, possibly copyvio based on user's other uploads. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fabrica di Roma (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status, most likely several authors involved, multiple exifs available. Uploaded in a row in 12.2014 all files are licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (on which base?) and sourced/authored with "Circolo Artisitco Fotografico di Fabrica di Roma e Accademia Fotografica Italiana" (no link provided, appears to be an Italian photo community, see also this news article).
Unclear is also File:Panorama La Rocca.jpg (here declared to be "own work", uploaded in 10.2014, no exif), but this photo is a crop of http://www.panoramio.com/photo/8357974 (2008, © All rights reserved by "FRANCO CRESTONI").
Multiple permission and/or further details needed.
- File:Fabrica di Roma - Panorama.jpg
- File:Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Comune di Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Via Amerina.jpg
- File:Chiesa di Santa Maria in Falleri.Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Chiesa collegiata di S. Silvestro Papa. Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Interno Chiesa di Santa Maria in Falleri.Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Teatro Tenda.Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Estate a Fabrica di Roma.JPG
- File:Chiesa della Madonna della Stradella.Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Palazzo Cencelli.Fabrica di Roma.jpg
- File:Chiesa della Vittoria.Fabrica di Roma.JPG
- File:Panorama La Rocca.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 19:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Note the discrepancy between the CC-BY post on Flickr (which claims creation in 2010) and the image metadata (which credits a different author and gives 2004 as the year of creation). This image may be Flickrwashed. Michael Barera (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Euro coins are copyrighted. 84.61.185.26 19:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by WikiCastillayLeon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status. Small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF: 2 actual paintings were taken from María de los Ángeles Gloria's Facebook (the painter) = File:Carretera Maria Gloria.jpg (14.12.2013) versus https://www.facebook.com/MariaDeLosAngelesGloriaGonzalez/photos/a.310118569059384.72714.309585732446001/566292236775348/?type=1&theater (11.2013) and File:Fabrica1 -.jpg versus https://www.facebook.com/MariaDeLosAngelesGloriaGonzalez/photos/pb.309585732446001.-2207520000.1425066418./310115702393004/?type=1&theater (2012), needing permission from María de los Ángeles Gloria. File:María de los Ángeles Gloria.jpg (14.12.2013) was published 1 day later in higher res via http://www.elbierzonoticias.com/frontend/bierzo/Arte-En-El-Morticia-vn15260-vst212 = http://www.elbierzonoticias.com/adjuntos/fichero_88289_20131215.jpg but seems to be grabbed also somewhere from Facebook.
All files may be also out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: not used, considering also that the related eswiki entry was deleted on same day per "sin relevancia enciclopédica)" / no indication of relevance.
Gunnex (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
NPA, źródło: http://turystykadlakazdego.pl/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/7.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azymut (talk • contribs) 2015-02-15T14:44:06 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
unreadable document — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatanFlayer (talk • contribs) 2015-02-21T17:03:31 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Author wants, bad image, bad quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zunter (talk • contribs) 2015-02-23T19:35:35 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Disparate bunch of files uploaded for an amazingly broad spam article about dental LED lamps that includes discourses on the nature of light and the photoreceptors of the eye. A random sampling of these can be found on Google images, but all are claimed as "own work", they're likely all copyright violations.
- File:Dental Chair with LED lamp.jpg
- File:Figure 14. Predictable curves of halogen and LED light source luminous power as a function of lifetime.png
- File:Figure 12 – Visual acuity as a function of luminous intensity obtained in psychophysic proofs.png
- File:Figure 11. Kruithof diagram. The orange area is Kruithof diagram area of POLARIS..png
- File:Figure 9. Sinusoidal pattern of biological rhythms.png
- File:Figure 8. Retina anatomy.png
- File:Figure 6. Photoreceptors cones and rods.png
- File:Figure 5. Schematic representation of neuronal light pathways.png
- File:Figure 2. Electromagnetic spectrum.png
- File:Figure 4. Eye anatomy.png
- File:Figure 1. Sketch of a wave and its characteristic parameters..png
- File:Figura 6. I recettori coni e bastoncelli.png
- File:Figura 7. Curve di assorbimento della luce.jpg
- File:Figura 10. Albero dei colori..jpg
- File:Figura 8. Struttura della retina.jpg
- File:Figura 3. B) Sorgente Alogena..jpg
- File:Figura 14. Andamento di tipo predittorio della potenza luminosa.png
- File:Figura 4. Struttura dell’occhio.png
- File:Figura 12 – Andamento dell’acuità visiva.png
- File:Figura 11. Diagramma di Kruithof.png
- File:Figura 9. Andamento sinusoidale dei ritmi biologici.png
- File:Figura 5. Percorsi neuronali della luce.png
- File:Figura 3. B) Sorgente LED..png
- File:Figura 2. Spettro elettromagnetico.png
- File:Figura 1. Rappresentazione di un’onda e dei parametri caratteristici.png
- File:Trolley application.jpg
- File:Ceiling application.jpg
_Sorgente_Alogena..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Sorgente_LED..png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
McGeddon (talk) 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
scans of data tables, unused, no cat. - also File:Table 14.png, File:Table 15.png, File:Table 12-2.png, File:Table 12.png Pibwl (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
out of scope - no real educational use Pibwl (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No source/license for depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:PDF icons
[edit]per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Adobe PDF Icon.svg
Josve05a (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work, no FoP in Ukraine. Sealle (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No source/license for depicted 3D artwork. Kelly (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Licence laundering [4]. Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by UCMAS INDIA PVT LTD (talk · contribs)
[edit]missing permission, probably also out of project scope
- File:Ucmas india house journal august 2009.jpg
- File:UCMAS INDIA HOUSE JOURNAL JANUARY 2011-PAGE4.JPG
- File:UCMAS INDIA HOUSE JOURNAL JANUARY 2011-PAGE3.JPG
- File:UCMAS INDIA HOUSE JOURNAL JANUARY 2011-PAGE2.JPG
- File:UCMAS INDIA HOUSE JOURNAL JANUARY 2011-PAGE1.JPG
- File:India Logo 300.jpg
Didym (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:JeyG. Most likely a Flickr grabber and mostly (especially those without exif) cropped, like File:Nevado.png. Ignoring high res uploads taken with Sony DSC W180 and Sony DSC W510, presuming own works.
- File:GobCaldas.png
- File:TorreChipre.png
- File:CafeManizales.png
- File:CableAereoMan.png
- File:Nevado.png
- File:Cable-03.jpg
- File:Fabrica Atardeceres.jpg
- File:Av Sant 01.jpg
- File:Chipre-Inv.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No indication of license at source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_-_Siavash_Kasrayi_(Left).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_Siavash_Kasrayi_(Left).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I don't think this license fits this picture, it was just published by BBC in 2014, no indication that the author has been dead 50 years or that the creator died before 1980. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
_-_Siavash_Kasrayi_(Left).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
_-_Siavash_Kasrayi_(Left).jpg){kind=link}
No indication that this image fits the license stated, it was published in 2014 by the BBC Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
File:From right, Hooshang ebtehaj - Siavash Kasrayi - Nima Yushij - Ahmad Shamloo - Morteza Keyvan.jpg
[edit]
Nothing in this file indicates the validity of the license given; the image was published in 2014 by the BBC. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
While image appears on Shirin Neshat website (as shown on source), there is no indication that the stated license is correct. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Also, Ms. Neshat is living, so if the image was taken by her, the PD-Iran license wouldn't apply anyway. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
While this image does appear on the source website of Shirin Neshat, there is no indication that they took the photo, and if they had the PD-Iran license wouldn't count anyway because she is still alive. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Abigor as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: lgoo\ -- Perhaps a typo, but some form of deletion criteria is required for speedy. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Logo, is copyrighted Abigor talk 09:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Please provide a link to support the statement that this logo is copyright. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: sigh http://www.nanohealth.in/ All rights reserved. Abigor talk 22:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: What about COM:TOO. The logo seems too simple for me. Copyrighted != Non-free. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think its TOO in my opinion it meets the treshhold with the two hands the mountains and the cross. Its nothing I could replicate easy, but that is just my opinion. Abigor talk 07:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Complex logo above COM:TOO. INeverCry 01:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, no metadata. User's other uploads were speedied, culled from the internet. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
While the photo may be user's own work, the 3D perffume bottle isn't. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
![23:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/02/27#c-Ellin_Beltz-2015-02-27T23:56:00.000Z-File:Perfume_"_Emoción_de_Soledad_".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
![01:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/02/27#c-INeverCry-2015-03-06T01:08:00.000Z-File:Perfume_"_Emoción_de_Soledad_".jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Date appears to be copyvio of https://eldeber.com.bo/sociales/mary-jane-el-nuevo-rostro-de-bolivision_89178 but Lola Lourdres appears to claim own work. Their was an earlier deleted version that was not undeleted Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There is a possible problem of Lourdes. Lola claimed own work and owning copyright over "Salgar Cabarello" who was on the watermark. Looks non-trivial. Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
![04:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/02/27#c-INeverCry-2015-02-27T04:49:00.000Z-File:Nawis_"El_Ciclón_Musical".PNG){kind=link}
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
![06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/02/27#c-Didym-2015-03-06T06:20:00.000Z-File:Nawis_"El_Ciclón_Musical".PNG){kind=link}
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pekmenrasta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images/artworks
INeverCry 04:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 04:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope INeverCry 04:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope INeverCry 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - painfully blurry image - unused INeverCry 04:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vicio papillon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - promotional - unused logos of non-notable company
INeverCry 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - plain text - unused INeverCry 05:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal artwork INeverCry 05:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Passion Films (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 05:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal/self-promo image INeverCry 05:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 05:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Younas home appliances (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 05:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal/promo image INeverCry 05:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mikisupor95 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images/logos
INeverCry 05:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - very blurry low quality image INeverCry 05:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 05:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 05:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The icons in these are above the COM:TOO and not own. Could be COM:DM but then I claim out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Atom Smasher error message 8.png
- File:Atom Smasher error message 6.png
- File:Atom Smasher error message 5.png
Josve05a (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The uploader is currently blocked, pending an unblocking-request. Please do not close this DR before such time that the unblock request has been handled in case of an unblocking, so that the user can be able to respond. Josve05a (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the 3rd per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Apple Computer Logo rainbow.png. See also {{User page image}}. FDMS 4 01:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete out of scope imho. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Two (/three) questions What is the limit for 'some', and is it ok to have non-free images as well on ones userpage? Also note that the user is blocked. does the same "{{User page image}}-policies" apply to blocked users? Josve05a (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Some means that the limit is to be decided on a case-per-case basis (in DRs). You said you want the closing admin to await the block's expiration, so why does his/her block matter? Indefinitely blocked users have their userpages blanked, only in such cases their {{User page image}}s should be deleted. FDMS 4 16:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Struck. The IP is a sock of DLindsley. Эlcobbola talk 00:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ping User:Elcobbola (same region). FDMS 4 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete DLindsley has now been indefinitely blocked; there is no longer a reason to grant an exception to scope for user page usage. Эlcobbola talk 00:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, also
- and Category:Atom Smasher error messages. Out of scope, no educational value. FDMS 4 00:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I stroke my vote, because DLindsley is now blocked forever and my argument is not valid anymore. Taivo (talk) 09:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Files of indefinitely blocked user, out of scope too Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - not Taylor Swift but an anon woman from crowd INeverCry 04:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - pic of random people in crowd INeverCry 04:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope - pic of random GMA staff INeverCry 04:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:05, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
out of scope - random crowd and fan pics, etc - none of these have Taylor Swift in the frame
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8113996779).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114106916).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114111156).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114124143).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114142233).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114144689).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114146261).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114148369).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114149188).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114149317).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114150722).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114151614).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114152379).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114153226).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114154223).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114155292).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114155855).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114156835).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114157673).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114157796).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114162822).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114162931).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114163759).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114165257).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114166837).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114167597).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114170060).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114173952).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114315753).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114316533).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114317201).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114317955).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114320327).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114321125).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114321903).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114324317).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114326806).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114327642).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114327731).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114331000).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114331752).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114336664).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114337328).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114357679).jpg
- File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114361659).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.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}
INeverCry 04:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhon sebastian bedoya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Probable copyvios. It's possible that this is a very skilled person, but very unlikely that they'd upload such low resolution copies of their work without saying anything about it, and bearing in mind the information on the user page, it's unlikely.
- File:Mamasita rica.jpg - Higher resolution version here
- File:Tigre en la noche.jpg - Google reverse image search shows several copies including apparent source it was based on
- File:Fondo-de-tigres-bonitos-en-el-caribe-757.jpg - Copies via Google reverse image search
- File:Naves invasoras.jpg - Google reverse image search shows many much higher resolution copies
Also, can we have the personal information on his/her user page removed from the public record for reasons of personal safety? Thanks. Ubcule (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jhon sebastian bedoya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope
INeverCry 04:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Out of commons:scope, plain text files should be integrated within the relevant wikiproject. Biographies can be integrated into a Wikipedia article if they are on a notable subject. Basvb (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Reaction by Makotohatori
[ Ceramic Artist_Makoto Hatori ] Makoto Hatori, ceramic artist who trained as a Japanese traditional potter but expresses his own philosophy into new, contemporary creations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makotohatori (talk • contribs)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This is from Quarmby's campaign website, copyright and NPOV concerns Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1989 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted advertisement Sebari (talk) 06:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: COM:DM Mys_721tx (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Usurpation de titre de noblesse. 86.218.75.143 10:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: No reason to delete, in use. Yann (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- File:Hard Rock Cafè Venezia 2.JPG
- File:Hard Rock Cafè Venezia 3.JPG
- File:Hard Rock Cafè Venezia.JPG
- File:Maschere Venezia.JPG
- File:Fondazione PUPI.JPG
- File:Pato Aguilera.jpg
- File:Roberto Pruzzo Genoa.jpg
- File:James Spensley.jpg
- File:William Garbutt.jpg
- File:Giocatori Genoa.jpg
Juggler2005 (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works of trophies - see User:Elcobbola/Awards#Commons_examples for examples/precedents
- File:Serie A 2010-2011.JPG
- File:Coppa dei Campioni 1988-1989.JPG
- File:Champions Trophey 2007.JPG
- File:Trofeo Luigi Berlusconi.JPG
- File:Torneo di Viareggio Milan.JPG
- File:Supercoppa Italiana 2011.JPG
- File:FIFA World Cup 2007.JPG
- File:Intercontinentale 1989.JPG
- File:Champions gigante.JPG
Эlcobbola talk 23:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the images are to find at different other points of the Web. There are used some different Cameras (iPhone 4, Nikon D 3100, Nokia 303, HP Photosmart M630, Nikon Coolpix P510) - hard to belive, that one person use such a lot of different cameras in only such less time. Looks much more, the uploder has taken a lot of images from the web. Maybe there are some of his own too, but it is hardly to say if there are some, which of them. So I think we need to delete them. And it's not the first time,this uploaer uploads copyvios. Some of the images have watermarks. And there are images from trophys -> Commons:DW.
- File:Genoa Ultras.JPG
- File:Perin Genoa.PNG
- File:Gasperini Genoa.PNG
- File:Genoa Ultras 2.PNG
- File:Fiorello Tour 2.JPG
- File:Fiorello Tour.JPG
- File:Merk&Kremont.JPG
- File:Inter Club 3.jpg
- File:Cordoba Campus.jpg
- File:Inter Club 2.jpg
- File:Cordoba 2015.jpg
- File:Mario Corso 2015.jpg
- File:Inter Club.jpg
- File:Bedy Moratti.jpg
- File:Matteo Salvini 2015.JPG
- File:Giovanni Toti 2015.JPG
- File:Partita del Cuore.JPG
- File:Sandro Giacobbe 2015.JPG
- File:Alex Britti 2015.JPG
- File:Marco Masini 2015.JPG
- File:Enrico Ruggeri 2015.JPG
- File:Moreno Donadoni.JPG
- File:Aglietti.JPG
- File:Samuel Inter.JPG
- File:Chivu Inter.JPG
- File:Orlandoni Inter.JPG
- File:Ruota Panoramica Chiavari.JPG
- File:Maury Lobina.JPG
- File:San Siro 2015.JPG
- File:Cerimonia Europa League.JPG
- File:Stadio Cabassi.JPG
- File:Corso Alberto Pio Carpi.JPG
- File:Striscione anti Lotito.JPG
- File:Carpi Teatro.JPG
- File:Prezioso 2015.JPG
- File:Diprè.JPG
- File:Inter Forever.JPG
- File:Inter Store.JPG
- File:Maglia Podolski 2.JPG
- File:Campioni 15.JPG
- File:Campioni 16.JPG
- File:Campioni 17.JPG
- File:Campioni 18.JPG
- File:Maglia Medel.JPG
- File:Maglia finale 2010.JPG
- File:Maglia Podolski.JPG
- File:Logo Milan.JPG
- File:Maglia Cerci.JPG
- File:Maglia Destro.JPG
- File:Maglia Antonelli.JPG
- File:Van Basten 1992.JPG
- File:Van Basten 1988.JPG
- File:Van Basten 1989.JPG
- File:Gullit 1987.JPG
- File:Shevchenko 2004.JPG
- File:Weah 1995.JPG
- File:Rivera 1969.JPG
- File:Kakà 2007.JPG
- File:Kakà 100 gol.JPG
- File:Pallone Champions 2007.JPG
- File:Cravatta Galliani.JPG
- File:Capitano Maldini.JPG
- File:Maglia Baresi.JPG
- File:Esordio maldini.JPG
- File:Maglia Van Basten.JPG
- File:Occhiali Sacchi.JPG
- File:Elicottero B.JPG
- File:Guanti Benvenuti.JPG
- File:Maglia Poggia.JPG
- File:Maglia Cesare Maldini.JPG
- File:Casa Milan (2).JPG
- File:Casa Milan (3).JPG
- File:Casa Milan (1).JPG
- File:Stadio San Nicola (4).JPG
- File:Stadio San Nicola (3).JPG
- File:Stadio San Nicola (5).JPG
- File:Stadio San Nicola (1).JPG
- File:Stadio San Nicola (2).JPG
- File:Keisuke Honda Milan.jpg
- File:Pazzini intervista Milan.jpg
- File:Regini.jpg
- File:Poli e soriano.jpg
- File:Samp-Milan.jpg
- File:Seedorf Milan.jpg
- File:Poli Milan.jpg
- File:Saponara-Poli.jpg
- File:Saponara Milan.jpg
- File:Curva samp.jpg
- File:Casa di Giulietta 2014 (4).JPG
- File:Casa di Giulietta 2014 (2).JPG
- File:Casa di Giulietta 2014 (3).JPG
- File:Casa di Giulietta 2014.JPG
- File:Arena dentro.JPG
- File:Arena di Verona 2014.JPG
- File:Giardini Piazza Bra.JPG
- File:Palco Arena.JPG
- File:Ala Arena.JPG
- File:Chiesa di San Pietro Martire.JPG
- File:Domus Mercatorum Verona.JPG
- File:Torre dei Lamberti 2014.JPG
- File:Comune Verona.JPG
- File:Gran Guardia 2014.JPG
- File:Lido di Venezia 2014.JPG
- File:Venezia alto.JPG
- File:Festival del Cinema di Venezia 2.JPG
- File:Festival del Cinema di Venezia.JPG
- File:Gondola Venezia 2014.JPG
- File:Mercato del Pesce Venezia.JPG
- File:Fascia Zanetti.JPG
- File:Zanetti PUPI.JPG
- File:Alluvione Chiavari.jpg
- File:Biglietti Genoa.jpg
- File:Genoa Old.jpg
- File:Genoa Tribuna d'onore.jpg
- File:Genoa World.jpg
- File:Stadio Ferraris 2.jpg
- File:Scudetto Primavera.jpg
- File:Coppa Italia Primavera.jpg
- File:Supercoppa Italia Primavera.jpg
- File:Coppa Torneo di Viareggio.jpg
- File:Collare d'oro al merito sportivo.jpg
- File:Trofeo Anglo Italiano 1995-96.jpg
- File:Trofeo Spagnolo.jpg
- File:Coppa del Centenario (1993).jpg
- File:Genoa-Oviedo.jpg
- File:Coppa Disciplina 1999.jpg
- File:Coppa dell'Amicizia Italo-Francese.jpg
- File:Coppa delle Alpi 1961-62.jpg
- File:Coppa Italia 1936-37.jpg
- File:Coppa Città di Genova.jpg
- File:Coppa Uruguay-Genoa.jpg
- File:Palla Scrum.jpg
- File:Coppa Lombardia.jpg
- File:Palla Dapples.jpg
- File:Coppa Giovanile.jpg
- File:You'll never walk alone Genoa.jpg
- File:Grifone Genoa.jpg
- File:Genoa 1924.jpg
- File:Genoa 1923.jpg
- File:Maglia Dellacasa.jpg
- File:Maglia De Vecchi.jpg
- File:Fondazione Genoa.jpg
- File:Dedica Genoa.jpg
- File:Franco Scoglio.jpg
- File:Scarpe Genoa.jpg
- File:Palloni Genoa.jpg
- File:Tifosi Genoa.jpg
- File:Don Gallo Genoa.jpg
- File:Sciarpe Genoa.jpg
- File:Tabellino Genoa.jpg
- File:Stadio Ferraris.jpg
- File:Maglia Genao 6.jpg
- File:Maglia Genoa 5.jpg
- File:Maglia Genoa 4.jpg
- File:Maglia Genoa 3.jpg
- File:Maglia Genoa 2.jpg
- File:Maglia Genoa.jpg
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Marcus Cyron (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey sorry but "the uploder has taken a lot of images from the web" is not true. I've taken this pictures from my Fotocamera, my old mobile phone and my new mobile phone that is an I pHone. These pictures are all of me and not taken from the web. How can we do? --NL2015 (talk) 10:06, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry, the above is a blatant lie. For example: File:Cordoba Campus.jpg and File:Inter Club.jpg appeared here before upload to the Commons; File:Cordoba 2015.jpg is cropped from this image (note also the "P. Valente" watermark in the lower left, which also appears in several others here.) If you use the watermark "P. Valente" in several images, why do you use the "FotoCarilli" in others (e.g. File:Keisuke Honda Milan.jpg), and yet a third type of watermark (gryphon) in File:Gasperini Genoa.PNG - an image which appeared here before upload to the Commons and where it was credited to "©foto.tanopress.it"? That gryphon watermark, by the way, appears all over the photostream here. Эlcobbola talk 16:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, File:Maury Lobina.JPG is taken from Instagram; File:Aglietti.JPG has the watermark "© TOP EVENTS PHOTOS © photo VITTORIO SANGUINETI ©" across the subject's chest. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
- ok sorry for my english.Most of these photos were taken from my cameras and mobile phones (new and old). Also some of these photos were snapped by my photographer friends such as Valente and Carilli. They have given me the originals of the photos and so I've uploaded with the original code. anything illegal! or not? --NL2015 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
- Also, File:Maury Lobina.JPG is taken from Instagram; File:Aglietti.JPG has the watermark "© TOP EVENTS PHOTOS © photo VITTORIO SANGUINETI ©" across the subject's chest. Эlcobbola talk 15:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
so ???? --NL2015 (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per nom/Elcobbola/COM:PRP. INeverCry 23:36, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wee Curry Monster as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: This image is a well known fake and is not an original image from the Times of 1820. Its been photoshopped to give the impression that this article appeared on the front page of the Time and is a composite of the Times leader and the text from the original article. As a composite image, the copyright would lie with the creator not the uploader. As a fake it has no place on wikipedia.
If it's a "known" fake, it may have encyclopedic scope and be useful, provided that the description clarifies its status. A mere cut and paste does not involve a significant creativity action and therefore is below the threshold of originality Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Its a bit more than a cut'n'paste fake, it was done to imply this was front page news and it wasn't. As a fake, without permission of the originator its a copyright violation to upload to wikipedia without their permission. WCMemail 13:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- To add, the OP has found another copy, which confirms this one has been faked. WCMemail 13:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep As mentioned by Wee Curry Monster, this "fake" image is "well known", so that it's valuable provided that the description states clearly that is a well known composed image and who uses it. On the other hand, cutting and composing two pieces of PD images is obviously far below the threshold of originality and therefore copyright issues are not relevant. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Done As clearly declared in the file source, the source is a pamphlet by the Argentina Embassy in the UK: (in english) Malvinas Islands. Argentina, its rights and the need for dialogue or "¿Cómo y cuándo llegó la población argentina a las Malvinas?" in (in spanish) Islas Malvinas, Argentina, sus derechos y el diálogo necesario
- That's definitely encyclopedic and therefore I've updated the description to (Spanish) Reelaboración de la noticia ofrecida por The Times sobre la captura por parte de Argentina de las Islas Malvinas en 1821. Incluye la cabecera del periódico y el cuerpo de la noticia, dispuestos como si hubiesen sido la portada del periódico. Esta reelaboración procede de los argumentarios del gobierno argentino en torno a la soberanía de las Islas Malvinas: El diario 'The Times' de Londres informó sobre este hecho, sin protesta alguna del Gobierno británico and (English) Reworked image of the news item published by The Times on the capture of the Falkland Islands by Argentina in 1821. The image shows The Times masthead and the text of the article, in a layout as if it were the actual front page of the newspaper, and formed part of the Argentinian government's argumentation in the Falklands dispute: In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. 'The Times' of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government. Translations in German, Catalan and Portuguese also provided. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't really know what this guy is talking about. I've just read a message of Gastón left in Commons:Café (see here). WCM's behavioral pattern is widely known (see here): he has made a series of uncivil comments, assumed bad faith, and engaged in personal attacks during interactions with other editors concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar). His record in the English Wikipedia is well known: see here, and this harassment patter is really funny (see here or here). Nothing new, I'm afraid. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep I just want to reach a good agreement and keep the document that does not deserve deletion, having clear its origin. It is in the public domain because it is the year 1821. I am not interested in personal stories and the accusations. It bothers me that insult me, watch me and make accusations against me. Here is the original. I propose upload the correct version. There are many documents here. It is to complement an article where I worked a lot. When you do not like, you can not use the document, as everyone documents in my user page in English Wikipedia. I once read that neutrality involves explaining all points of view. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Do you want to point me to where I said the original couldn't be used? Its the fake I objected to and if instead of being confrontational you'd acknowledged the fake and uploaded the correct version, I wouldn't object. For the record I have neither insulted nor accused you of anything. As to accusations [5] your first comment was your presumption of acting in bad faith. And do you want to let everyone know who it was helped you with your first articles on English wikipedia? WCMemail 17:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version. Objections? --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- To that none. And if you ask an admin to oversight the fake versions, as originator I'll withdraw the nomination. WCMemail 18:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I uploaded a new version. Objections? --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep I belive this image should not be deleted. It states the source, the description page clearly state what it is, no doubt about it, its on the public domain, i see no reason to delete the image. the text that can be read on the image is the text that did apear on The Times, and the header is the header of the same newspaper page so its not fake. i see no problem with the composition of that, since its clearly stated on the description. --WiZaRd SaiLoR (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep It's clear now where the problem was: it was not a fake but an innocuous mash up of images in public domain. Since everyone's happy with current version, I'd say no more drama is needed. --Langus-TxT (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- No it was a fake, it was a fake knocked up to claim it was on the front page of the Times. Its been circulating for about 10 years now. WCMemail 22:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- To anyone who can think through this with a cool head, it's obvious that the most important issue here is whether or not this was printed on The Times, at the indicated date. If it wasn't, then I would agree with you that it is "a fake". But nitpicking on its location inside the paper to call it a fake... what's next, a fake manipulation of brightness and contrast? --Langus-TxT (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- No Langus, the image uploaded was faked ie was not original, the OP found the original which no one has a problem with but one editor insists on imposing a fake which it seems no one wants. WCMemail 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- To anyone who can think through this with a cool head, it's obvious that the most important issue here is whether or not this was printed on The Times, at the indicated date. If it wasn't, then I would agree with you that it is "a fake". But nitpicking on its location inside the paper to call it a fake... what's next, a fake manipulation of brightness and contrast? --Langus-TxT (talk) 22:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep This image has a reference from which it was taken. This image has a reference from which it was taken. It is totally wrong say "the file it is false" when there is a reference in the middle that contradicts that. From my point of view, say that a note taken from a government website is false is a total offense against Argentina (I say this from a neutral point of view). In fact, on the file appears the day of the note (August 3, 1821, a note of 205 years ago). Also, copyvio does not apply on a note of 205 years ago. --Mega-buses (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- A note of 200 years wasn't the issue, the fake version in the Argentine Government paper is. WCMemail 22:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- You have references that say "is fake"? --Mega-buses (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have access to the Times Digital Archive and can confirm the image Gaston found is correct. The fake version uploaded as I commented was faked to imply it was front page news, it wasn't. WCMemail 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, the file may stay in commons. Now that that part of the file is fake or not is not important. If he was front page or not, it is not important in itself. --Mega-buses (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I've never had problems with the original, I do take issue with trying to justify a known fake though. And it is important on Commons not to present falsified images, especially when they were falsified to mislead. WCMemail 23:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Anyway, the file may stay in commons. Now that that part of the file is fake or not is not important. If he was front page or not, it is not important in itself. --Mega-buses (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have access to the Times Digital Archive and can confirm the image Gaston found is correct. The fake version uploaded as I commented was faked to imply it was front page news, it wasn't. WCMemail 22:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- You have references that say "is fake"? --Mega-buses (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep Image does not suggest it was front page news, and it comes from a reliable source. No reason to delete. Anyway the important thing is that Argentine possession of Malvinas was peaceful, open and public. International law does not require front page news :) --· Favalli ⟡ 01:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Keep This image Dębe Continue on Wikimedia, is old, and Public Domain : Also tells the story of the Falkland Islands. --Rodarte (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me that the image without the header - accepted by WCM and GC as a compromise only to be rejected by Discasto - is very clearly PD because it is so old and shows no significant recent involvement (other than scanning). But the digital stitch-up with the header does not qualify because of the involvement of a more recent actor within the Argentine government.
It seems to me that the image was stitched up in a way that misleads. It implies that this was front page news when it in fact wasn't. The claim of "total offense against Argentina" is irrelevant, and the claim that the header is "a reference from which it was taken" is inaccurate. This is not being used as a citation - if you wanted to do that you could fairly easily stitch "The Times - 3 August 1821" at the bottom of the text, or store it with the file as the source in the normal way. There is no need for the additional header to be included to provide the source.
It seems to me that the image loses nothing if restricted to the compromise image agreed between WCM and GC, so I would endorse that image and delete the stitched-up image. If it were kept as-is, I would suggest that it would badly need a greater clarification in the description.
I suggest that there may have been a certain selection bias here as this request has been canvassed (another one) on the Spanish Wikipedia and mentioned at the Spanish-language Commons:Café. Kahastok talk 09:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Kahastok, don't use words lightly. I'm meaning canvassing. I can't say anything about the Spanish Wikipedia, but the mention in the Spanish-language Commons:Café (the obvious place to ask) was made even before this DR was opened (after WCM spuriously tried to delete the file by invoking {{Speedydelete}}. Just to clarify. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC) PS: I assume you've reached this DR just by chance...
- Do you not think that going on to a separate project and advising editors known to take a particular side in Falklands-related disputes of the discussion as per my diffs is canvassing? I do. And as per Commons:Offsite discussion it is valuable for the closer to take account of whether there is some systemic bias in terms of the editors taking part in the discussion, caused by canvassing.
- For my part, I came here after noticing the discussion at en:David Jewett. Kahastok talk 14:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Hi all, I guess most of you are not regular commons users and therefore don't know much about commons policies. Therefore, I encourage you to carefully read Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion (for not trying to spuriously delete images again), COM:OVERWRITE (to know the criteria to allow overwriting of files) and especially Commons:Deletion policy. It will help you to properly argument for the deletion of the image. To sum up, the official commons policies state that an image must be deleted if and only if:
- There are legal issues, such as copyright violation, lack of legal information, incompatible licenses, or privacy issues.
- They are out of scope (as they are not educationally useful or are self-promotion or used for vandalism/attack (and here I must quote the policy: Files apparently created and/or uploaded for the purpose of vandalism or attack. Pre-existing designs and symbols that are or have been associated with nationalistic, religious or racist causes are not out of scope solely because they may cause offence. Provided they are legal to host and otherwise fall within Commons scope (e.g. if they could for example be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article on a hate group) they should be kept
- There are social issues, as photographs of identifiable people. Courtesy deletions are also allowed, but only for the uploader's work.
- Having clarified that, I have to recap:
- The picture has no legal issues. It's a simple composition of two {{PD-old}} images with no originality in the composition.
- IMHO it's in scope. As it's being used as part of the Argentinean argumentation in the Malvinas sovereignty dispute (as proven by the picture's source: Islas Malvinas, Argentina, su derecho y el diálogo necesario, by the Argentine Embassy in the United Kingdom), it can be used to illustrate Argentina's argumentation (regardless of whether the claim is fair or not, it does not matter), provided that proper information about the source is provided (it is).
- Obviously, no social issues are involved.
- Finally, commons is not the place to push anyone's agenda in other projects. If you feel that the use of this image can translate into bias, agree not to use it. But don't come here to try to prevent the image from being used by means of the expeditious procedure of make it spuriously deleted. Hope this clarifies the point. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Mdennis (WMF): Pinging Moonriddengirl for some helpful advice as always. This particular image, for which it is apparent there is a concerted lobbying campaign to keep, has to my mind a number of problems. It seems the motivation for commenting is not entirely with the interests of Commons in mind but for Discasto to continue to pursue his vendetta against me and others feel they are defending a national interest.
- My comments:
- First of all it is a fake. It was originally conceived, put together and used by Argentine nationalists to imply that the story was front page news and was more widely known about than it actually was.
- It is abusing a trademark to do so, the trademark of the Times newspaper. As such there is likely to be further copyright implications from its use on wikipedia in general and its retention in Commons.
- Whether as a composite artwork, produced by an unknown individual its copyright status is not clear. Is the Times trademark in the Public Domain for starters and as a composition which required original input it is not entirely clear who owns the copyright.
- Hence, genuinely this appeared a speedy deletion candidate to me and for information I reviewed the policy first before making that decision. I've also indicated to the OP I have no objection to the original being used as that is clearly PD. I have been repeatedly accused of simply trying to delete this file long after I agreed with the OP that the original is fine. To my mind, this is a deliberate use of bad faith accusations to create tension and drama where none is needed. WCMemail 16:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do think the only drama, personal attacks and the like, have been the ones created by you (it really saddens me). Summarizing:
- Being a "fake" or not is not a criterium for deletion. Again, read and understand Commons:Deletion policy. Furthermore, as you acknowledge It was originally conceived, put together and used by Argentine nationalists to imply that the story was front page news and was more widely known about than it actually was, so that the image is fully encyclopedic in order to illustrate the "Argentine nationalists" stands. Is it so difficult to understand?
- Trademarks and copyrights are different things (for you to learn: Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions#Trademark_law: Trademark laws control the commercial use of logos, terms, and names related to products and services. Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as the images do not violate any copyright, they are OK here. That applies even though certain commercial use of this material may be trademark infringement). BTW, the Times logo in the 1820's can be seen in here, just to prove it's in the public domain.
- You again fail to understand (intentionally or not) that copyright protects creative acts and that a minimum level of originality is needed for anything to be copyrighted. Snipping an article and a logo and paste them one below the other is not above such thresho.d.
- You're the only one that is creating bad faith accusations (as usual, I should say), so please, stop the drama. This is a technical discussion. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- I do think the only drama, personal attacks and the like, have been the ones created by you (it really saddens me). Summarizing:
- I think it would be helpful if you did not dominate the discussion and allow someone with expertise to comment. You've expressed your opinion, please allow others to do so. WCMemail 11:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Emend image If the two parts are a "marriage" then a bar at least between the two would "divorce" the parts, and the page number of the actual article well ought to be inserted lest viewers think the two parts were initially one. This solves WCM's problem, and also is in accord with the principle that no image should be presented in a misleading manner. "Fake" was too strong a word, but the issue of accuracy remains. It is improper for us to reinforce any demands from anyone if an accurate indication would be accomplished by the divorcing of the two halves. Collect (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC).
- Comment Which commons principle is that (no image should be presented in a misleading manner)? Fortunately Commons is not censored and it means that Commons legitimately includes content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. I assume that you're meaning, for instance, that we should include a notice in a picture depicting a flat Earth stating The Earth is actually round. The issue here is that the source (Argentina government) has presented the image in a misleading manner. We're not the ones to amend it. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 00:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Nothing to do with "censorship" and a lot to do with "honesty." If the image is gemacht, we should make that clear to users. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know what 'gematch' is (y no tengo por qué, ya que esto es un proyecto multilingüístico) but I guess you haven't read the description. The status of the picture is clearly described in the picture description, so that you comment seems pointless. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 16:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I do not think this is sufficiently clear from the description. But perhaps your over-active presence here may not be helping? We know your view. Perhaps we could hear others' as well? Kahastok talk 17:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment @Kahastok: Do not say I ordered helpful, because it was not. I did not do anything to you. I asked some users to do when unfairly labeled speedy deletion. The consultation showed HOURS later. Talk of the document, not that I said or did not say. Stop, please. Don't invent. "What do I do?" isn't "vote for me". --Gastón Cuello (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I do not understand your first sentence. I would note that I have already discussed the document: I think the current version is inappropriate and a likely copyright violation, and I think the description is distinctly misleading, but I have no problem with the compromise version agreed between you and WCM.
- It is not inventing anything at all to point out that you notified multiple users on the Spanish Wikipedia of this question, editors that you knew (or should have known) were likely to be sympathetic to your view. Now, by my understanding of the Commons rules, that does not mean that their comments have to be deleted or ignored, nor that any action has to be taken against you or them. The only point is that the closer should be aware that, yes, some editors here may have come in through notifications, and that they should therefore take account of the potential for systemic bias. I'm afraid that I do not understand why you consider this a controversial thing to say. Kahastok talk 16:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I indicated that I don't asked votes, because the query was opened hours later. To WCM I suggested upload text only, without the logo. See [6]. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
![[6]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d6/20150227221053!The_Times_-_Argentine_Capture_of_the_Falkland_Islands_1821.jpg){kind=link}
- You made them aware that the image might be deleted as opposed to that the a particular discussion was taking place? I don't see that it makes a difference. It is useful to the closer to know that it happened.
- As I say, I don't have a problem with using that image instead, which does not have any of the issues identified with the current version. Kahastok talk 17:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't understand all. What do you say? --Gastón Cuello (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'll try in Spanish.
- La diferencia entre decirles que la imagen puede ser borrar, y decirles que hay una discusión para borrar la imagen, no es importante. Es útil para él que cierra la discusión a saber que algunos usuarios fueron notificados.
- Para mí, no es necesario a borrar esta imagen que no tiene las problemas identificadas. Kahastok talk 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- I understand. Thank you. --Gastón Cuello (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Solo para clarificar, esta imagen tampoco tiene ningún problema identificado, al menos ninguno relacionado con una política de commons. Again, Commons is not censored. Thanks --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment In order to clarify the political bias behind this deletion request, it's interesting to read this dialogue. One of them complains because of the alleged source of the picture (as if it were an argument for deletion); the other one asks for the "defacing" of the picture in order to make it not usable (as if it were commons purpose). --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 23:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- And yet you find a comment I made in private to someone else but claim you're not wikistalking or wikihounding. Mmmm. WCMemail 00:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Stalking is such fun - but making an assertion that someone wishes to "deface" an image which is a gemacht image is a tad misleading - it is the use of a composite image which is the problem here, and one which is of a serious nature - suppose we had a composite photo of Franco and Peron -- would you find that utile? Oops -- those are all real.<g> Collect (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- It would depend on the source. If such a composite image had been created by you, it'd be useless as it does not have any encyclopedic use (there's no room for a "composition created by Collect"). But, if such a composite image had been created by the UKIP to mock the claims of Argentina and Spain, or to justify its racists stands, or whatever, then it would have an encyclopedic use (for instance, to illustrate the way the UKIP creates hate speeches: "composition created by the UKIP to...", just an example... as weird as yours). As repeated many times (unsuccessfully, I'm afraid), Commons is not censored (Commons is not censored, and legitimately includes content which some users may consider objectionable or offensive. The policy of "Commons is not censored" means that a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons) and we cannot delete images just because you and your friends don't like it. Other issue is how this image is used in each project: it's up to each project to decide whether to use this image or not, but not by attempting to remove or deface it here. The rest of issues are futile. Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 11:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Except that the OP intended to upload an image of the original Times image for encyclopedic use but he cannot have the image he actually wants and everyone agrees with as you insist we have the fake he inadvertently loaded at the beginning. So why exactly are you insisting we must have this image and no other? Your ranting about policy, insistance on having the last word and generally dominating this dicussion is unhelpful. But pretty good evidence for your wikistalking and hounding behaviour. WCMemail 12:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again, you show your refusal to understand anything at all. You can use whatever image you need or you wish in the English Wikipedia. If you want to use this, fine. You can use other one, fine as well. That choice is not related to commons at all, but to each project. If you had the slightest interest in understanding how commons works, you'd have noticed that the same image you keep on trying to delete, exclusively on you ideological stands, provides a very obvious link to File:Times-3-august-1821-Falklands (cropped).jpg, which can be used by you and your friends at will if you think it's the most proper for an encyclopedic purpose (provided you reach an agreement).
.jpg){kind=link}
- On the other hand, your endless ranting about wikistalking, hounding and the like provides a funny example of transference. WCM complaining about wikihounding!!! LOL. I understand you feel uncomfortable when not being the one ranting about policies, not being able to have the last work and generally dominating this discussion. You've got so used to using policies as a stick to beat your opponents with that you feel frustrated now (I feel really sorry for your frustration). As told, I don't have the slightest interest about your editions, your discussions, your reports in any board, the umpteenth report on you in the English Wikipedia Arbcom, your many topic bans (have you count them?), and, in general, anything related to you and to your biased editions in the English Wikipedia. But if you come here, not understanding (and not wishing to understand) commons policies, I will have to stand and try to explain (even if you refuse) commons policies. Have a nice day. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are - at length - distracting the issue with the whole "censorship" thing. Nobody is arguing that it should be deleted purely on "ideological stands", nor that it is not "child-friendly", nor that "it may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons". If that was the argument, it would also oppose the compromise version agreed between WCM and Gastón Cuello. Read the arguments made against the image above, and you will find that you are not rebutting them.
- But I repeat, your hyperactive presence here is not helping the matter. We all know what you think. Perhaps let somebody else have a go? Kahastok talk 19:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Source
[edit]
Just to clarify the discussion. The source is this one:
- Argentine Embassy in United Kingdom. Malvinas Islands. Argentina, its rights and the need for dialogue (in English). Retrieved on 2015-03-01.
And the text the image is illustrating says this:
At the beginning of the Argentine independence movement, the islands were part of the territories inherited from Spain. In 1820 the Buenos Aires Government formally took possession of the Malvinas Islands. The Times of London reported the event without raising any protest or action by the British Government.
Best regards --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 09:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is a "government source" a "reliable source" as generally required, or might it conceivably have an interest in how a topic is presented which might not be in accord with other sources? For a copy of The Times, is this source "reliable as to exact depiction of the newspaper"? If there is a better source for depiction of the newspaper, ought the better source be used? Collect (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- "generally required"? This is commons, not wikipedia. The source is definitely reliable for depicting what that government says. And for sure it has an interest in how the topic is presented. That's the reason why the image is useful, because describes what a government involved in a dispute says.
- "If there is a better source for depiction of the newspaper, ought the better source be used?" Again, this is Commons. Nobody forces you to use this image in any way. Is it so difficult to understand? --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if a government posted the
"Protocols"pictures of fairies in a garden and asserted it represented an "historical fact" that Commons would not have the "common" sense to reject it? If that is the position here, then I suggest Commons is worth less than Garner's view of the Vice-Presidency. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)(emending as any fictitious photos or references are of equal value here) Collect (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if a government posted the
- I don't know what you actually mean. This is a multicultural and multicountry project so that you risk many of your cultural references not being understood at all. If you refer to the en:Protocols of the Elders of Zion when talking about the "Protocols", the answer is yes, commons host a collections of pictures related to that work and even several copies (see Category:Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Regarding Garner, the Vice-Presidency... what are you talking about? Sorry if I don't know every minor chapter of the US (or UK, or whatever) history (believe or not, the rest of the world has a rich and colorful history too :-)). --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 08:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa! Slow down! Now we start with Godwin's law? Come on. There is no deception here. Let see: The story was reported? Check. In The Times? Check. Is cited by academic sources? Check. Nobody is saying that this was front page news. Why? Because it is irrelevant. Here's the most important thing. The article was published. That all. This picture comply with our educational mission. Cheers --· Favalli ⟡ 01:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is this an image of the actual article that was published? No. Has it been manipulated? Yes. Was the purpose of that maniupulation to deceive? Yes.
- No one has a problem with an image of the actual original article. Blunt question, do you want the original or the faked for some other reason? WCMemail 12:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa! Slow down! Now we start with Godwin's law? Come on. There is no deception here. Let see: The story was reported? Check. In The Times? Check. Is cited by academic sources? Check. Nobody is saying that this was front page news. Why? Because it is irrelevant. Here's the most important thing. The article was published. That all. This picture comply with our educational mission. Cheers --· Favalli ⟡ 01:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
See below:
Is this an image of the actual photograph that was published? No
Has it been manipulated? Yes.
Was the purpose of that manipulation to deceive? Yes.
Over and out. --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 13:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Where both the original and the edited version are old enough to be clearly in the public domain, where the description clearly states that the photograph has been edited and is not the original, where the photograph is of historical value in its own right and is widely used on other projects as an example of disinformation or photographic manipulation. None of these points apply to the image in the current discussion. Kahastok talk 19:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- On the contrary, all of them applies: public domain, description clearly stating that it's an edited image and encyclopedic value. Booooring --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 22:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Interesting analogy,Stalanist purges, Argentine Government publications. Mmmm? WCMemail 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- As you don't seem to understand logical reasoning and refuse to keep within the type of arguments listed in Commons:Deletion policy, I was simply trying to use something you could understand such as analogies. As you've find it 'interesting' I guess you've finally understood the underlying reasoning. Cool!!!!! --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Another example: File:Manipulated portrait of Abraham Lincoln (1860's).jpg. Is this an image of the actual photograph [lithograph, in fact]that was published? No. Has it been manipulated? Yes. Was the purpose of that manipulation to deceive? Yes. Interesting analogy, freedom of slaves, Argentine Government... I like it!!! :-D --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- As you don't seem to understand logical reasoning and refuse to keep within the type of arguments listed in Commons:Deletion policy, I was simply trying to use something you could understand such as analogies. As you've find it 'interesting' I guess you've finally understood the underlying reasoning. Cool!!!!! --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 10:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- That was a very constructive comment. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with us, WCM. --· Favalli ⟡ 23:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC) PD: Incidentally, we're talking about british newspapers, not Argentine Government publications.
- No you're not talking about british newspapers this is from an Argentine Government publication. However, as I've repeatedly pointed out I have no problem with the original. This isn't the original, just to make my point clear I have no problem with the original. In an Argentine Government publication, a fake version of the original is used but again I have no problem with the original. The fake was produced to deceive as to the prominence of the article, claiming it was widely known and on the front page - again I have no problem with the original. The OP uploaded a copy of the original and I have no problem with the original. Did I remember to emphasise I have no problem with the original. Sorry if in pointing out I have no problem with the original I seem to be repeating myself but it seems that people commenting from a narrown nationalist perspective based on rather blatant canvassing seem to have a problem comprehending the use of English and that I have no problem with the original. I thought it best to emphasise I have no problem with the original. WCMemail 11:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- COM:CENSORSHIP --Discasto talk | contr. | es.wiki analysis 15:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- So WCM says, what, nine times, in bold, "I have no problem with the original", and you still accuse him of trying to censor it? That doesn't even begin to make sense. Your argument is a complete straw man.
- The closer may wish to consider this fairly spectacular instance of canvassing, coupled with an utter refusal to assume good faith - against the rules of both the Commons and the Wikipedia hosting the thing. Kahastok talk 20:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Comment It's clear now that this image does not violate any commons policy. The image does not meet the criteria for deletion, that's all that matters. The image is not a fake, it was published in The Times, August 3, 1821. That's a fact. The so-called "controversy" over the location inside the newspaper (¡!) is a unique invention of this deletion request. Best regards --· Favalli ⟡ 23:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: To be a fake is not a reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcela Franco Lozano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art and promo photo. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Retrato de una amiga con cara de Monsalisa.jpg
- File:Caballo de la serie Obra Negra.jpg
- File:"Naturaleza muerta".png
- File:La dama de rojo.jpg
- File:Toros de la serie Obra Negra.jpg
- File:Pintura San Sebastián.jpg
- File:Obra negra.jpg
- File:Estudio para un ángel.jpg
- File:Caballo al Viento..png
- File:Diego..jpg
- File:Ciudad Prohibida..png
- File:La estancia de los recuerdos.png
- File:Tres elementos de una flor.jpg
- File:Elementos del Progreso.jpg
- File:David Manzur.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marcela Lozano. Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcela Franco Lozano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Same issue as Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marcela Lozano (this uploader's sockpuppet) - derivative works of contemporary paintings by still-living author. No evidence of permission.
- File:El Muchacho de la bicicleta.jpg
- File:El Caballo (Horse).jpg
- File:CaballoDM.jpg
- File:Pez devorando caballo.jpg
- File:Muchacho de la bicicleta.jpg
- File:Estudio de DM.jpg
- File:Caballo de DM.jpg
- File:Dama de rojo.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Эlcobbola talk 15:46, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The logos are not own work and is, IMO, above the TOO.
- File:Logo CCD White on Pantone 280 C.png
- File:Logo CCD C + txt white on Pantone 280 C background WIDE.tif
Josve05a (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS needed to confirm own work Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
besseres Bild verfügbar: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Corps_Makaria-Guestphalia_%28Wappen%29.JPG Mehlauge (talk) 14:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
..jpg){kind=link}
..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Создан как альтернатива попыткам MPowerDrive повесть свое понимание Русский на против Путина.Так как участник MPowerDrive не унялся в пропоганде "национальной идеи" что Русская армия а значит и Русские были только со стороны Белых помогать ему более не буду. Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 Участник:I77 (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Статья адмирал
Было пояснено что здесь резонно повесить законные погоны Колчака с разлапистыми крыльями у Орла, погонами в которых он давал присягу Родине. "Картонные погоны" Колчака с немецким видом крыла с пояснительной надписью "Русская армия" без уточнения предложенного мною Белого движения, это заявление что в гражданской войне были русские только на стороне Белых, а Красные и Зеленые были не Русские.
Перед тем как началась война правок я сообщил в нескольких положенных местах
MPowerDrive просто обратился к администратору Участник:Тара-Амингу меня забанили.
Итог: предложенный мною компромиссный вариант размещения "Картонных погон" не напротив Путина и нарисованный мною погон не удовлетворил MPowerDrive и он оставил не законо скопированный из журнала (без запроса правообладателей статьи) кусок страницы журнала с изображением погон. Кроме как MPowerDrive данный эскиз погона никому не нужен так как он отказался снять на против Путина свое понимание "Русская армия", даже при наличии в статье моего эскиза но только в общем ряду погон и без выпячивания "национальной идеи" о только русских среди Белых, то я удаляю данный файл за ненужностью. --Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Создан как альтернатива попыткам MPowerDrive повесть свое понимание Русский на против Путина.Так как учасник MPowerDrive не унялся в пропоганде национализма помогать ему более не буду. Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
удалить как ненужный Елисеев А.Д. 8(909)992-8626 (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
А на мой взгляд файл очень даже нужный и полезный. Используется для иллюстрации статьи ru:Адмирал. Оставить. --MPowerDrive (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: This is not a valid reason for deletion Ymblanter (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be a blown up version of File:HarmOsziFunktionen.png. Leyo 14:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Leo, I've modified colors at HarmOsziFunktionen.png. Can I upload it to Commons? I'm begginer author of Wikipedia. I'm sorry if I did a mistake. All the best for you. Tom--Tomasz59 (talk) 15:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- You already have. I see some minor differences among the two files now. However, you failed to credit the original author (User:AllenMcC.). --Leyo 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- On behalf of Tomasz59 I've added information about derivative work (hopefully, in proper way). --Doctore (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn. Leyo 22:59, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Sigwald as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|copyvio, no OTRS permission Deciding by username, maybe the uploader is copyright holder. This is his/her only contribution. Taivo (talk) 17:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Stifle (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW. Poster is ~45% of the image. Josve05a (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Stifle (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Another potentially Flickrwashed image ("Copyright 2010 Adam Jacobs Photography LLC" in image metadata). Michael Barera (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Also, it may be a good idea to double check the other Dig Downtown Detroit images. I believe that there are only two (potentially) Flickrwashed images in the batch that I've uploaded, but I may be wrong. Michael Barera (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: COM:FW Stifle (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Marczoutendijk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshots of questionable notability.
- File:Popupwindow met links naar wiki.png
- File:OpenPoiMap shoplayer.png
- File:OpenPoiMap version 1.png
- File:Popup window with links.png
- File:User Pois versio 0.9.png
- File:Taglocator popup window.png
- File:Tagloc-Popup-Window.png
- File:Tagloc-userpois2.png
- File:Tagloc-various.png
- File:Tagloc-userpois.png
- File:Tagloc-tourism.png
- File:Tagloc-sport.png
- File:Tagloc-shops.png
- File:Tagloc-shopsonmap.png
- File:Tagloc-main.png
- File:Tagloc-food.png
- File:Tagloc-popup.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
All the files listed above are needed (now or in the future) in the wikipage for the openpoimap.org tool I created for the OSM community.
Please do not remove those files.--Marczoutendijk (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Files are needed for a project. Would be a bit cruel to delete them. Natuur12 (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is my image of a film poster I have created of my own documentary film. I own the website http://www.denandrasporten.se as well as the image DAS2013.jpg that shows the poster of the film that is mine. I hereby give up all my rights of this image and the film poster it depicts in order to have the film poster of Den Andra Sporten/DAS2013.jpg available and free to all in Commons, just the way it was originally uploaded in Commons.Mattiaslow1970 (talk) 20:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC) I stress this once again. This is my image of a film poster I have created of my own documentary film. I release all the rights for anyone to this poster.Mattiaslow1970 (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Please send Evidence of permission to OTRS. Natuur12 (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This image is meant for school certificates only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossharlequin (talk • contribs) 2015-02-23T23:52:11 (UTC)
- Keep. {{PD-textlogo}} applies, so there is no copyright issue, and the file is in use, so it is automatically within scope. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Natuur12 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
*2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
*2.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
nieudolne próby stworzenia Wikivoyage banner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azymut (talk • contribs) 2015-02-15T14:51:30 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
*2.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative works, no FoP in Ukraine.
- File:Brunnen der Stadtgründer.JPG
- File:Petriwske Ortsschild 2.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj- Denkmal in Schowte (Rajon Pjatychatky), Ukraine.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj- Denkmal in Schowte (Rajon Pjatychatky).JPG
- File:Leninstatue in Krywyj Rih.JPG
- File:Denkmal in Krywyj Rih.JPG
- File:Eastern GOK Schowti Wody Denkmal.JPG
- File:Eastern GOK Schowti Wody Logo.JPG
- File:Afghanistandenkmal in Pjatychtky.JPG
- File:Pjatychatky Weltkriegsdenkmal Detail.JPG
- File:Pjatychatky Lenindenkmal totale.JPG
- File:Pjatychatky Lenindenkmal Detail.JPG
- File:Pjatychatky Kinderkrankenhaus.JPG
- File:Bohdano-Nadeschdiwka.JPG
- File:Afghanistandenkmal.JPG
- File:Skythischer Grabhügel in Schowti Wody Frontansicht.JPG
- File:Skythischer Grabhügel in Schowti Wody.JPG
- File:Schowti Wody Kunst an Sporthalle.JPG
- File:Schowti Wody Lenindenkmal vor dem Palast der Kultur.JPG
- File:Palast der Kultur in Schowti Wody Giebelfigur 2.JPG
- File:Palast der Kultur in Schowti Wody Giebelfigur 1.JPG
- File:Puschkin-Denkmal in Schowti Wody.JPG
- File:Puschkin-Denkmal in Schowti Wody Querformat.JPG
- File:Ehrenpark Schowti Wody Denkmal Großer Vaterländischer Krieg.JPG
- File:Kriegerdenkmal und Ewige Flamme Ehrenpark Schowti Wody.JPG
- File:Ehrenpark Eingang.JPG
- File:Tschernobyl-Denkmal im Ehrenpark.JPG
- File:Tschernobyl-Denkmal im Ehrenpark 1.JPG
- File:Stadion Eingang 3.JPG
- File:Stadion Eingang 2.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 7.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal und Palast der Kultur.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 3.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 6.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 4.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 2.JPG
- File:Bohdan Chmelnyzkyj-Denkmal 1.JPG
- File:Puschkin-Denkmal.jpg
- File:Holdomor -Gedenktafel.jpg
File:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal Berlin-Marzahn 2.jpgFile:Sowjetisches Ehrenmal Berlin-Marzahn 1.jpg- File:Uranwerk.jpg
- File:Lenin-Denkmal mit Palast der Kultur.jpg
,_Ukraine.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Sealle (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Aus welchem Grund sollen hier meine Bilder gelöscht werden? Berihert (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Die Bilder sind alle von mir, ich bin der Urheber! wieso also Löschgrund Urheberrecht. Und Panoramafreiheit in der Ukraine als Löschgrund ist wohl ein Witz: 1.) Sind darunter Bilder aus Deutschland und nicht nur aus der Ukraine und 2.) Wird gerade in der Ukraine an einem Gesetzt zur Freigabe gearbeitet. Was also soll kurz vor Freigabe die Löschung dieser Bilder? Berihert (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Needs description at least, no license at source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Look at the right, the description is in persian (right to left text). --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment "Persian: Boulevard in Damad", and no license at source given in upload template. Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No verifiable source, dubious license: no evidence that the material has any relation to Ukraine. Sealle (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- May the change of the license to PD-70 satisfy the requirements? Ain92 (talk) 08:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the photographer is unknown member of Red Army. Relationship with Ukraine is unknown. It is better to use laws of Soviet Union and Russia: 70 years from publishing, and photo with unknown author will fall into public domain. As publication data is also unknown, we cannot be sure, when 70 years from first publishing fulfills. Taivo (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Unclear to me why this should be regarded as ineligible for copyright. 4ing (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Svar fra Trondivers: Jeg siterer fra: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Retningslinjer_for_billedbruk : Våpen: Heraldiske våpen. Det er visse restriksjoner på bruken av heraldiske våpen, men disse gjelder ikke den opphavsrettslige siden ved bildene. Med heraldiske våpen menes slike våpen som bl.a. kommuner, fylker, byer, biskoper og adlige bruker. Se også: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kjetil_r/fromgov : Norske kommune- og fylkesvåpen, samt andre heraldiske våpen, reguleres av andre lover enn Åndsverksloven, og kan derfor lastes opp. Hvis det skal være restriksjoner på gjengivelser av heraldiske våpen, vil stort sett alt som finnes av våpenruller og bøker om heraldikk i verden være ulovlige. Hele Wikipedia er full av heraldiske våpen hvor den som har vektorisert tegningene har oppgitt seg selv som opphavsmann. Se for eksempel: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Sodacan Sodacan har vektorisert en enorm mengde med våpen som opprinnelig er tegnet av andre, og han oppgir hele veien : Source: Own work by uploader. Han oppir forskjellige lisenser, men i Norge er ikke heraldiske våpen beskyttet av Åndsverkloven. Bruk av heraldiske våpen reguleres av straffeloven § 328: Med bøter eller med fengsel inntil 3 måneder straffes den som ... 4. uheimlet bruker norsk eller utenlandsk offentlig våpen, merke eller segl eller noe våpen, merke eller segl som lett kan forveksles med slike. Forskrift for bruk av riksvåpenet fastslår at bruk av Norges riksvåpen er tillatt når riksvåpenet brukes til dekorasjon eller informasjon, og det ikke forsøkes fremstilt slik at brukeren har offentlig stilling, tjeneste, eller myndighet. Det er derfor jeg har valgt å bruke 'ineligible for copyright', fordi norsk lovgivning ikke gir noen beskyttelse mot gjengivelse av heraldiske våpen, selv ikke riksvåpenet, så lenge det kun er for informasjon. 11:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think this can be regarded a "offentlig våpen" (offentlig meaning governmental or public (as in public administration)). - 4ing (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Du har fullstendig rett. Dette er overhodet ikke et offentlig våpen, dvs. våpen brukt av en offentlig myndighet. Jeg har overhodet ikke prøvd å hevde at dette er et offentlig våpen. Poenget mitt er at der hvor norsk lov gir restriksjoner for gjengivelse av heraldiske våpen, gjelder dette kun offentlige våpen. Når det gjelder andre våpen (private, ikke offentlige) finnes det ingen restriksjoner overhodet i noen norsk lov. Det er derfor ingen som har noen lisens eller copyright for disse våpnene. Det er derfor jeg har valgt å bruke 'ineligible for copyright'. Alle Wikipedias alternativer for lisensiering innledes med: 'I, the copyright holder of this work', men det finnes ingen copyright holder til dette verket i henhold til norsk lov. Jeg forstår at Wikipedia-samfunnet er et internasjonalt samfunn som lager sine egne regler uavhengig av nasjonal lovgivning, og at de kanskje tar for gitt at alt som lastes opp har en eller annen form for copyright-beskyttelse. Kanskje Wikipedia anser meg for å være copyright holder ifølge deres eget regelverk siden det er jeg som har lastet opp filen. Men hva er egentlig problemet her? Mener du at jeg ikke har lov til å laste opp filen i det hele tatt? Trenger jeg tillatelse fra noen? Såvidt jeg kan forstå, er det ikke noen norsk lov som hindrer meg. Hvis du er uenig så bør du oppgi en eller annen referanse til norsk lov. Dette reiser noen generelle og prinsipielle spørsmål når det gjelder opplasting av heraldikk i sin alminnelighet til Wikipedia. Disse spørsmålene bør avklares før du bare sletter tegningen min. Kanskje jeg heller bør bruke 'Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0)'? Den har jeg pleid å bruke tidligere, og da har ingen protestert. 18:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- First of all, I do not have the necessary rights to delete images. After reading Commons:Coats of arms, I've learned a lot I didn't know before I started this DR, and I'm sure the administrator closing this DR will be familiar with that page. The way I understand it, the license should be changed to an acceptable Creative Commons license, as it is only the blazoning that is ineligible for copyright, not the representation. - 4ing (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Trondivers: I have now changed the licence to a Creative Commons license. I hope this will settle the matter. 22:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: after the license change. JuTa 06:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
{{PD-RU-exempt}} ze-dan (talk) 08:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment/Keep What is the argument for deletion? The image seems to be extracted from a commemorative postage stamp which seems to fall under "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like)" Hohum (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- On this image there are no state symbols and signs. --ze-dan (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- A postage stamp, like a banknote, is a state document, surely? Else, how would a banknote be one, and a postage stamp not? Hohum (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
- On this image there are no state symbols and signs. --ze-dan (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Stamps are free only as a whole picture, cropped or otherwise reworked stamps are not free. rubin16 (talk) 13:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- What is the source for this strong statement? "Free" here means they can be hosted on Commons, i.e., can be altered. Materialscientist (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete It even says so on the license tag: For example, the denomination and country name must be preserved on postage stamps.. This is a quite common restriction. —Wuzur 15:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Delete No attributes of a postage stamp = no reason to use PD-RU-exempt. Sealle (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Comment If this happens to be deleted: Please redirect to a version that actually is a stamp as the image is widely used. —Wuzur 19:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: when the stamp is public domain, parts of it are public domain too. --JuTa 06:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Contrary to the opinion of closing admin in previous discussion, Russian postage stamps are NOT "public domain". They are "exempt from copyright". Many stamps feature copyrighted works of art, such as paintings by modern artists, cartoon characters, Olympic games mascots etc. Decision to keep cropped image of such stamp essentialy means that everyone can crop out such works of art from the image of a stamp, use them and make derivative works of them. If we encourage such actions, this can lead to major legal problems. Until we have explicit statement from Wikimedia Foundation lawyers allowing to disregard these concerns, we should delete cropped stamps. As for a more broad problem of suitability of images that are "not free enough", there is a long-standing consensus of making money and postage stamps exempt from a more general policy of not allowing such images. As Rubin16 stated, same thing happens, for example, with {{Money-EU}}: they are free, but there are restrictions on derivative works. As a conclusion, parts of the stamps aren't covered by the Russian legislature as copyright exception and couldn't be stored as freely licensed works. Grebenkov (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also this stamp: I don't think someone would argue that if we crop out the image of Mickey Mouse, it will be available for reuse, including the production of derivative works. --Grebenkov (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mickey Mouse stamps are a different story - it is Azerbaijan, and I believe the line below the diamond on top right is a notice that the image is copyrighted (© Disney [9]) - I can't 100% verify that right away for this stamp, but I saw such copyright notices on other Disney stamps from either Azerbaijan or neighboring countries. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan stamps are exempt from copyright: {{PD-AZ-exempt}}. There are no exceptions in the law that would allow to grant copyright protection to the specific stamp. Copyright notice just underlines the core issue with Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet stamps: they cannot be protected by copyright as a whole (this is by law), but parts of them can be (and most of the time are). --Grebenkov (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are saying that a government can put a copyrighted image on a stamp (without an agreement with the copyright holder), add a few minor details like a border and stamp value, and the stamp would be in public domain (if there is an appropriate law in that country). This is wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, not in "public domain", but "exempt from copyright". This exemption covers only one particular reproduction of the work of art, it does not make the work itself free for use. --Grebenkov (talk) 13:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- You are saying that a government can put a copyrighted image on a stamp (without an agreement with the copyright holder), add a few minor details like a border and stamp value, and the stamp would be in public domain (if there is an appropriate law in that country). This is wrong. Materialscientist (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Azerbaijan stamps are exempt from copyright: {{PD-AZ-exempt}}. There are no exceptions in the law that would allow to grant copyright protection to the specific stamp. Copyright notice just underlines the core issue with Russian, Soviet and post-Soviet stamps: they cannot be protected by copyright as a whole (this is by law), but parts of them can be (and most of the time are). --Grebenkov (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Mickey Mouse stamps are a different story - it is Azerbaijan, and I believe the line below the diamond on top right is a notice that the image is copyrighted (© Disney [9]) - I can't 100% verify that right away for this stamp, but I saw such copyright notices on other Disney stamps from either Azerbaijan or neighboring countries. Materialscientist (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- __________________
- Kept again, please see File:1977_CPA_4774.jpg from which this image was extracted. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-4){kind=link}
Previously ruling admins seem to be unaware of Russian copyright law. This photo of Brezhnev is owned by RIA Novosti and will remain copyrighted for decades. While the copyright status of full Russian postage stamps can be debated (since they contain copyrighted artistic portions that cannot be cropped out but are considered to be PD official documents when used in full), but this cropped version is 100% not ok. Another user in the future could easily upload the original of it that could not be considered public domain by any reason. The closer cited the idea that if a whole work is PD, then parts of it are PD too - but that doesn't mean that this copyrighted image must be kept, it means that stamps with copyrighted portions (like the one this came from) should not be allowed. While the Russian part of Wikipedia Commons is notorious for copyright violations due to the complex and retroactive nature of Russian copyright law, the precedent of misunderstandings by inexperiended users is no excuse for violating copyright rules established in Wikipedia Common's charter and the very licence template that this file uses. PlanespotterA320 (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Consolidated_list_O-R#Russia deals with issue explicitly -- the whole stamp is free from copyright, but the painting is not. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:10, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
This photo was previous given a taken date of up to 1965 and the photographer named as Denise Rodriguez-Tome diff. If this was incorrect, and the work is anonymous, then 70 years applies rather than 50 per COM:CRT. Fæ (talk) 16:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- "Message du 24/02/15 12:21
De : "Denyse RODRIGUEZ TOME" <denyse.rodriguez.tome@wanadoo.fr> A : permissions-commons-fr@wikimedia.org Copie à : Objet : Usine d'Auteuil.jpg - Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg
Bonjour,
Je donne mon autorisation pour la republication des photos Usine d'Auteuil.jpg - Ancienne pompe à feu d'Auteuil.jpg, à l'occasion de la page wikimedia.
Ces gravures sont dans le domaine public.
Denyse Rodriguez Tomé
59, rue Jean-Baptiste Pigalle
75009 PARIS
0140161493 / 0675560328
denyse.rodriguez.tome@wanadoo.fr"
Eaudeparislf
- I understand the release statement is on record (presumably there is an OTRS number). However if the current explanation is that the photograph is anonymous rather than being taken in 1965 by Denyse Rodriguez Tome (which now appears logically impossible), the copyright of the orphan work expires in 2035. A claim from Eau de Paris or a personal claim from Denyse Rodriguez Tome that the photograph is public domain if neither claims to be the original copyright holder, does not seem meaningful. --Fæ (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you Fæ. I understand your point of view. The only thing I can do is to scan the book's credits 'L'Usine d'Auteil. Mise en scéne de l'eau à Paristo prove that Denyse Rodriguez Tomé has worked for its publication and she knows the photo's origin.
Eaudeparislf
- Either the work is anonymous and is over 70 years old, or it is not. If the author is known, then the current licence should be corrected. My understanding is that taking an anonymous work from an archive and publishing it, does not waive pre-existing copyright, even if publication rights are then claimed. --Fæ (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The author is anonymous and the photo is over 70 years old. Eaudeparislf
- Thanks. The terminus ante quem you provided was 1965. Was new evidence found that changed this to more than 70 years ago? --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
The terminus ante quem I provided was just temporary. I didn't know the real date, as the photo's authorship. Now, I can confirm that the author is anonymous and the photo is over 70 years old. In France, this photo is copyright free so it was taken necessarily before 1945. Eaudeparislf
- Yes, however I am unclear what evidence you have that the photograph must have been taken before 1945. Examining the models of the cars parked on the street, shows that the most likely date for this photograph is 1945 or later. Could you explain more clearly what the evidence is? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Examining the cars, we can see two Fiat 500 produced from 1936 to 1955. Eaudeparislf
- Sorry, actually the cars in the photos are the second generation of Fiat 500, produced from 1957 to 1975. Eaudeparislf
- Indeed, it was some of the other models that I thought indicated a 1945 or later date. Would you care to reconsider the 70 years claim? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- As you wish. The photo will be deleted? Eaudeparislf
- This DR will be closed by an administrator who can make the decision based on the discussion here. Normally this is within 7 days of creation. --Fæ (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for your help,Fæ. Eaudeparislf
Deleted: the cars on the image are definitly not pre 1945. JuTa 06:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Copy of http://uscathle.net/pub15.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Voir aussi Commons:Bistro#File:Vichy03.jpg. Yann (talk) 16:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Cette affiche est depuis longtemps dans le domaine public et on pourrait trouver 10 autres adresses mail la reproduisant. Avec d'autres, on la trouve régulièrement en vente dans diverses enchères et j'en ai moi-même eu une dans ma collection personnelle,léguée depuis à une exposition. Sans en être certain - je ne me souviens pas de l'origine du millier de documents sportifs stockés sur mon disque dur - je pense que le fichier versé provient de cette ancienne acquisition. Mais il suffit de comparer le cliché de l'url en cause avec le fichier versé sur Commons pour voir que la première n'est pas la source effective de la seconde. Patrick Rogel dépasse cette fois les limites admissibles pour présumer de sa bonne foi : même avec un excellent logiciel de retraîtement, je doute fort qu'on puisse sortir File:Vichy03.jpg du cliché fourni par http://uscathle.net/pub15.jpg. Une simple observation montre que les deux clichés proviennent probablement de deux éditions différents de l'affiche. Cordialement --Claude PIARD (talk) 18:55, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Que divers sites Web reproduisent cette affiche ne signifie pas qu'elle serait dans le domaine public. Rien ne garantit que le graphiste serait mort en 1944, ce qui aurait libéré les droits au 1er janvier 2015. Par ailleurs, le recours à la licence CC-BY-SA 3.0 est discutable puisque le modèle insère un texte commençant par « En tant que détenteur du droit d’auteur (...) ». Or je ne vois pas comment vous pourriez être détenteur du droit d'auteur, sauf démonstration contraire. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sur ce dernier point, tu as parfaitement raison : j'ai assez maladroitement voulu dire que j'étais l'auteur de la photo ... d'un document qui relève par ailleurs du domaine public (voir ma réponse ci-dessous). La propriété de celui-ci revient bien de l'ETAT FRANCAIS qui, comme tu le sais, est "mort" en 1944 ... Amicalement.--Claude PIARD (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Français : L'affirmation de possession du droit d'auteur sur cette image me semble au minimum douteuse. Est-ce que Claude PIARD peut démontrer qu'il est l'auteur de cette image et de l'oeuvre de laquelle cette numérisation est dérivée? Peut-il démontrer que l'affiche est effectivement dans le domaine public? Dans le cas contraire, l'image n'est pas acceptable sur Commons. Selon COM:LICENSE, les images sont admissibles que si les affirmations sur le droit d'auteur peuvent être supportée correctement. En cas de doute, suppression. Amicalement, Letartean (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- English: License claim is at best dubious or wrong. If Claude PIARD, can prove he owns the copyright on this image (the scan) and on the image it is derived from, this is admissible. Otherwise, it must be deleted. Letartean (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cette affiche est diffusée entre 1941 et 1944 par l'Etat Français dont elle est un élément officiel de propagande sous un régime d'exception. Elle procède donc bien du domaine public voire étatique. En outre le fichier versé n'a rien à voir avec le site découvert par Patrick Rogel car les deux prises de vues reproduisent à l'évidence des éditions (impressions) différentes du document au niveau des coloris eux-mêmes et des contrastes : rien de comparable sinon le graphisme. L'accusation de copyright de ce site ne tient donc pas. Bien que le fichier en soit depuis trop longtemps dans mon pc pour être totalement affirmatif je pense bien être l'auteur de la photo d'un document véritablement public pour avoir été commandé, payé et publié sur des deniers d'Etat. D'où la déclatation de bonne foi de la photo (et non de l'affiche elle-même) comme oeuvre personnelle ; mais peut-être aurait-il été plus judicieux de la déclarer "domaine public" ? Une telle maladresse est-elle réparable sans perdre véritablement une illustration utile à un article important ? Amicalement--Claude PIARD (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cette image a un auteur : cf. http://www.gros-delettrez.com/html/fiche.jsp?id=1405175&np=1&lng=fr&npp=10000&ordre=1&aff=1&r= et celle que vous avez chargé ici est une œuvre dérivée. Votre argumentation sur l'absence de droits attachée au fait quer ce serait une commande d'État ne tient pas un seul instant la route. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Lequel auteur est mort en 1995. Il y aurait bien quelques trous dans sa bio sur fr.Wikipédia. Trous que l'on pourrait combler avec cette affiche qui, malheureusement, ne peut rester sur Commons. Mais avec le lien vers Gros & Delettrez, c'est possible. Daniel*D
- Cette image a un auteur : cf. http://www.gros-delettrez.com/html/fiche.jsp?id=1405175&np=1&lng=fr&npp=10000&ordre=1&aff=1&r= et celle que vous avez chargé ici est une œuvre dérivée. Votre argumentation sur l'absence de droits attachée au fait quer ce serait une commande d'État ne tient pas un seul instant la route. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 23:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- Cette affiche est diffusée entre 1941 et 1944 par l'Etat Français dont elle est un élément officiel de propagande sous un régime d'exception. Elle procède donc bien du domaine public voire étatique. En outre le fichier versé n'a rien à voir avec le site découvert par Patrick Rogel car les deux prises de vues reproduisent à l'évidence des éditions (impressions) différentes du document au niveau des coloris eux-mêmes et des contrastes : rien de comparable sinon le graphisme. L'accusation de copyright de ce site ne tient donc pas. Bien que le fichier en soit depuis trop longtemps dans mon pc pour être totalement affirmatif je pense bien être l'auteur de la photo d'un document véritablement public pour avoir été commandé, payé et publié sur des deniers d'Etat. D'où la déclatation de bonne foi de la photo (et non de l'affiche elle-même) comme oeuvre personnelle ; mais peut-être aurait-il été plus judicieux de la déclarer "domaine public" ? Une telle maladresse est-elle réparable sans perdre véritablement une illustration utile à un article important ? Amicalement--Claude PIARD (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
- La question qui reste est : des oeuvres d'art (ici une affiche) achetées par l'Etat tombent-elles dans le "domaine public" ? L'auteur - ou ses héritiers - conservent-ils des droits dessus ?
Quelqu'un peut-il répondre à celà ?--Claude PIARD (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Claude PIARD Non, (hélas) des œuvres commandées par l'État ou issues d'agents de l'État ne sont pas dans le domaine public (contrairement par exemple aux États-Unis où les œuvres du gouvernement fédéral sont dans le domaine public). L'auteur de l'affiche conserve ses droits d'auteur dessus, et ses ayant-droits en héritent, le droit français (et européen) aujourd'hui fixant la durée d'application des droits d'auteurs à 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur (pas du publicateur, ou du détenteur physique d'un objet commandé, ou d'une institution). C'est sans doute regrettable (et c'est pas la première fois que le droit d'auteur nous fait des absurdités pareilles), mais c'est la loi, on n'y peut rien. Esprit Fugace (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- D'après le lien donné par Hégésippe, l'auteur est fr:Jean-Adrien Mercier, mort en 1995. Il faut être très rigoureux sur ces questions de droit d'auteur et effacer rapidement cette image. --El Caro (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- En fait, je n'ai fait que reproduire un lien précédemment fourni par Lomita sur fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme en cours, cf. ce diff. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Par ailleurs, et comme le note Letartean, il m'étonnerait que Claude PIARD (en tous cas à la lecture de son autobiographie laissée sur un projet-frère) soit suffisamment âgé pour avoir collaboré avec le gouvernement de Vichy, qui plus est comme artiste-peintre. A son enseigne, je l'avertirais qu'il a intérêt à se calmer avec ses violations répétées du droit d'auteur sur Commons et que, plus sur frwiki ou pas, j'obtiendrais qu'il soit à nouveau bloqué pour insertion de contenu copié-violé sur Wikipédia et ses attaques personnelles à mon égard, comme cette dernière demande de blocage pour vandalisme. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- En effet, bien que "produit d'avant-guerre", je n'ai pas été en mesure de "collaborer" au régime de Vichy : là-dessus, Patrick, bien vu et merci ! Maintenant - et quelle que soit l'issue de ta demande - pour ce qui est du "vandalisme", comment qualifies-tu le fait de motiver une demande de suppression en dénonçant une copie de site pour un fichier qui, compte-tenu de son aspect même, ne peut en être issu ? Inadvertance (ce qui serait un moindre mal) ... mauvaise foi ... ? La prochaine fois regarde au moins à deux fois pour utiliser de véritables arguments. Bonne semaine à toi. --Claude PIARD (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Par ailleurs, et comme le note Letartean, il m'étonnerait que Claude PIARD (en tous cas à la lecture de son autobiographie laissée sur un projet-frère) soit suffisamment âgé pour avoir collaboré avec le gouvernement de Vichy, qui plus est comme artiste-peintre. A son enseigne, je l'avertirais qu'il a intérêt à se calmer avec ses violations répétées du droit d'auteur sur Commons et que, plus sur frwiki ou pas, j'obtiendrais qu'il soit à nouveau bloqué pour insertion de contenu copié-violé sur Wikipédia et ses attaques personnelles à mon égard, comme cette dernière demande de blocage pour vandalisme. Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- En fait, je n'ai fait que reproduire un lien précédemment fourni par Lomita sur fr:Wikipédia:Vandalisme en cours, cf. ce diff. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- D'après le lien donné par Hégésippe, l'auteur est fr:Jean-Adrien Mercier, mort en 1995. Il faut être très rigoureux sur ces questions de droit d'auteur et effacer rapidement cette image. --El Caro (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Claude PIARD Non, (hélas) des œuvres commandées par l'État ou issues d'agents de l'État ne sont pas dans le domaine public (contrairement par exemple aux États-Unis où les œuvres du gouvernement fédéral sont dans le domaine public). L'auteur de l'affiche conserve ses droits d'auteur dessus, et ses ayant-droits en héritent, le droit français (et européen) aujourd'hui fixant la durée d'application des droits d'auteurs à 70 ans après la mort de l'auteur (pas du publicateur, ou du détenteur physique d'un objet commandé, ou d'une institution). C'est sans doute regrettable (et c'est pas la première fois que le droit d'auteur nous fait des absurdités pareilles), mais c'est la loi, on n'y peut rien. Esprit Fugace (talk) 09:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Sur les conseils d'Asclepias, je reporte l'ensemble des débats ci-dessous--Claude PIARD (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC) :
- La preuve de la présence de cette image dans le domaine public, et du droit de diffuser des œuvres dérivées sous licence CC-BY-SA, n'est pas apportée.
- D'autre part, ce ne sont pas des « adresses mail » qui reproduisent l'image, mais des sites web, et ceci ne démontre pas que Commons aurait toute latitude pour héberger cette œuvre dérivée.
- Hégésippe | ±Θ± 11:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Je suis d'accord avec Hégésippe Cormier.
- La proposition « un élément officiel de propagande sous un régime d'exception » comporte deux problèmes. D'abord, il faudrait prouver clairement que c'est « un élément officiel de propagande » (ce qui ne devrait pas poser de problème mais c'est une condition nécessaire − mais non suffisante − à la conservation du fichier) et ensuite il faudrait préciser quel est ce « régime d'exception » (je ne me souviens que très vaguement des travaux législatifs de François Hepp, René Dommange et Paul Lerebours-Pigeonnières et je ne me souviens pas vraiment d'un exception).
- Je précise que, dans tout les cas, ce fichier ne peut pas être sous licence CC-BY-SA. soit il est couvert par le droit d'auteur (et donc à supprimer), soit il est dans le domaine public et alors il faut mettre « domaine public » (mettre CC-BY-SA serait une violation de droit d'auteur, du « copyfraud »).
- Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- A Hégesippe : dois-je te répèter que, contrairement à ce que sous-entend Patrick Rogel, il ne s'agit pas d'une "oeuvre dérivée" - qui de toute façon ne le serait pas du site qu'il met en cause pour des raisons techniques évidentes (cf supra) - mais d'un cliché argentique personnel rescanné ? Peut-être ne me suis-je pas exprimé assez clairement ci-dessus : excuse-moi.
- A VIGNERON : le fait que la-dite affiche porte en bandeau bas (telle une signature) Commissariat général à l’Education générale et aux Sports soit un département ministériel capital de l'Etat Français et que le texte principal de l'affiche reprenne essentiellement ces mêmes termes démontre qu'il s'agit bien d'« un élément officiel de propagande » de ce département qui est au centre même de la Révolution nationale prônée par le Maréchal. Par ailleurs le vocable officiellemment utilisé pour les textes législatifs pris sous ce régime (acte dit loi : il te suffit de taper ce concept sur wikipédia pour, à défaut d'un article dédié, voir défiler tous les textes de cette période affublés de ce qualificatif) m'incite à penser qu'il est bien considérée comme d'exception - au moins au plan législatif - c'est à dire sans continuité avec celui qui précède (quoique) ni avec celui qui suit (mais qui en pérennise néanmoins l'organisation territoriale) ... et de surcroît "décédé" depuis plus de 70 ans à ce jour. Mais ma conclusion est peut-être hâtive ? Enfin : entièrement d'accord avec ta dernière phrase et je me suis déjà expliqué et excusé pour cette maladresse inhérente à une mauvaise compréhension de la définition de l'auteur. Est-il possible de corriger le versement en indiquant la mention correcte ? ou faut-il procéder à un nouveau ? Cordialement.--Claude PIARD (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Pour corriger une information sur une page de description d'un fichier, il est possible de modifier la page de description, comme pour toute autre page modifiable. Dans le cas de File:Vichy03.jpg, il s'agira au moins d'ajouter les informations relatives à l'oeuvre d'origine (l'affiche), c'est-à-dire son auteur (l'illustrateur) ainsi que les modèles de Commons qui correspondent à ce que vous pensez être le statut actuel des droits d'auteur sur l'oeuvre d'origine. Dans le champ «source», vous expliquerez, si c'est le cas, qu'il s'agit d'une photo que vous avez prise d'un exemplaire de l'affiche qui était dans votre collection. Du moment qu'au moins toutes les informations relatives à l'oeuvre d'origine sont bien indiquées et que vous distinguez très clairement ce qui concerne l'oeuvre d'origine de ce qui concerne la reproduction photographique, il ne vous est pas interdit d'ajouter une prétention d'avoir des droits d'auteur sur votre reproduction photographique, si c'est bien la vôtre, et donc de laisser votre offre de licence CC sur la reproduction. Toutefois, une telle prétention à des droits d'auteur sur une reproduction photographique n'est pas reconnue par Wikimedia comme applicable aux États-Unis, elle n'est pas applicable non plus dans beaucoup de pays et elle est un peu mal vue sur Commons. Et puisque vous ne semblez pas certain qu'il s'agit vraiment de votre photographie, il semblerait plus simple de ne pas prétendre à des droits d'auteur sur cette reproduction photographique et de retirer votre offre de licence CC, à moins que vous y teniez. Cela dit, même après modification de la page et inscription des bonnes informations, cela n'empêchera pas la suppression de ce fichier de Commons si l'étude du cas conclut que l'oeuvre d'origine n'est pas libre. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Voir File:Affiche rouge.jpg et Commons:Deletion requests/File:Affiche rouge.jpg, cas similaire. Yann (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Il est certain que la justification initiale de la demande de suppression, telle que rédigée par le proposant, n'était pas la bonne. Comme vous le faites remarquer, il ne s'agit pas de la source. Et le lien fourni dans cette demande ne mène à aucune information utile. Toutefois, indépendamment du défaut de la demande initiale, des éléments pertinents ont été soumis par d'autres utilisateurs dans la discussion. Sur le fond, l'étude de ce cas particulier devrait se centraliser sur la page de la demande de suppression et autant que possible ne pas être dédoublé ici. J'utilise toutefois l'occasion pour mentionner qu'il serait probablement utile que vous révisiez l'ensemble des fichiers que vous avez téléversés jusqu'à maintenant pour vous assurer que les informations d'auteurs, sources, statuts, etc., soient exactes et claires. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Désolé El Caro l'affiche est "attribuée" (probablement à bon escient d'ailleurs) mais pour l'avoir eue en mains, je ne me souviens pas y avoir noté de signature ; et aucune des 4 reproductions dont nous trouvons trace dans ce débat ne permettent pas de la confirmer. Cordialement.--Claude PIARD (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- L'image aurait du passer en speedy deletion. --El Caro (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Non, la suppression immédiate n'est clairement pas appropriée dans ce cas, et l'Affiche rouge est un cas similaire, car l'un des arguments contre la suppression est justement que c'était un document créé à but de propagande. Maintenant, je penche plutôt pour la suppression, l'auteur étant connu et mort depuis moins de 70 ans, et il n'y a pas de raison que les droits d'auteur n'appartiennent pas à cet auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- L'image aurait du passer en speedy deletion. --El Caro (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sauf que l'ordonnance du 9 août 1944 déclare comme nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du gouvernement provisoire de la République française. Outre le fait qu'il apparaît délicat de demander à bénéficier de droits d'auteur pour participation à la propagande de Vichy, cette affiche relative au soutien des orientations imposées par l'acte dit-loi de décembre 1940 (dit également Charte des sports) peut être considérée comme elle-même relevant de cette ordonnance. C'est à dire juridiquement nulle et donc ne faisant l'objet d'aucuns droits. Ca se discute. Mais comme l'a souligné Yann, le contexte est bien celui de l'affiche rouge eu égard à la législation du Gouvernement provisoire ... qui a force de loi pour tout ce qui touche à cette période. --Claude PIARD (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Vos « arguments » n'ont aucune valeur, et incitent à ne pas respecter les législations française et internationale relatives au droit d'auteur. On n'en sortira pas tant que vous ne reconnaîtrez pas que l'auteur de l'affiche d'origine a des droits, et que ceux-ci ne sont pas expirés. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Affirmation un peu péremptoire : ces arguments ont déjà été entendus une fois. Cela signifie qu'ils ont de la valeur aux yeux de certains.--Claude PIARD (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas juriste, mais il ne semble pas que l'ordonnance du GPRF du 9 août 1944 ait totalement annulé les dispositions de Vichy en ce qui concerne les droits d'auteur. C'est en tout cas l'avis de ces auteurs. Daniel*D 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas plus juriste que toi mais le débat s'élève là de deux crans : merci. La question qui reste est : le fait que le texte sur la propriété intellectuelle adopté sous la IV° en 1957 repose sur une réflexion initiée antérieurement sous Vichy remet-il en cause l'impact - éventuel - de l'ordonnance de 1944 sur les œuvres réalisées au bénéfice de la propagance officielle de l’Etat français entre 1940 et 1944 ? Bon dimanche.--Claude PIARD (talk) 09:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Je ne suis pas juriste, mais il ne semble pas que l'ordonnance du GPRF du 9 août 1944 ait totalement annulé les dispositions de Vichy en ce qui concerne les droits d'auteur. C'est en tout cas l'avis de ces auteurs. Daniel*D 22:16, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Affirmation un peu péremptoire : ces arguments ont déjà été entendus une fois. Cela signifie qu'ils ont de la valeur aux yeux de certains.--Claude PIARD (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Vos « arguments » n'ont aucune valeur, et incitent à ne pas respecter les législations française et internationale relatives au droit d'auteur. On n'en sortira pas tant que vous ne reconnaîtrez pas que l'auteur de l'affiche d'origine a des droits, et que ceux-ci ne sont pas expirés. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 20:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
- Sauf que l'ordonnance du 9 août 1944 déclare comme nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du gouvernement provisoire de la République française. Outre le fait qu'il apparaît délicat de demander à bénéficier de droits d'auteur pour participation à la propagande de Vichy, cette affiche relative au soutien des orientations imposées par l'acte dit-loi de décembre 1940 (dit également Charte des sports) peut être considérée comme elle-même relevant de cette ordonnance. C'est à dire juridiquement nulle et donc ne faisant l'objet d'aucuns droits. Ca se discute. Mais comme l'a souligné Yann, le contexte est bien celui de l'affiche rouge eu égard à la législation du Gouvernement provisoire ... qui a force de loi pour tout ce qui touche à cette période. --Claude PIARD (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Si, comme je le soutiens et Asclepias le souligne ci-dessus : il est certain que la justification initiale de la demande de suppression, telle que rédigée par le proposant, n'était pas la bonne, la bonne procédure ne serait-elle pas de clore ce débat pour en ouvrir un autre sur les problèmes soulevés à cette occasion sur la nature publique ou non du document photographié ? Les modifications apportées depuis sur conseils à la présentation du fichier sur Commons ne le mettent pas à l'abri de cette remise en cause et on y gagnerait peut-être en clarté et en sérénité. Cordialement. --Claude PIARD (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
- Synthèse des éléments plaidant pour le maintien de ce fichier
Ma proposition ci-dessus restant sans réponse, je résume ci-dessous ce qui pourrait soutenir le maintien de ce fichier.
La question posée par les discussions faisant suite à la démarche initiale de copyvo est : une affiche commandée, éditée et diffusée par l'Etat tombe-t-elle dans le domaine public ou son auteur - et ses héritiers - conservent-ils leurs droits dessus ? Pour User:olevy (argumentation développée à propos de la demande de suppression de l’Affiche rouge), dans n'importe quelle entreprise, c'est l'entreprise et non les employés qui possède les droits sur ce qui est publié au nom de l'entreprise. L'Etat français ayant cessé d'être depuis le 20 août 1944 le présent document qui porte explicitement mention d'un de ses départements ministériels serait alors bien dans le domaine public. Cependant en France, selon User:Esprit Fugace, les commandes de l'Etat font exception à la règle : elles ne sont pas dans le domaine public et l'auteur de l'affiche conserve ses droits d'auteur dessus et ses ayant-droits en héritent. Mais le régime de Vichy entre-t-il bien dans la définition de l'Etat ?
Certes depuis la fin du XX° siècle divers gouvernements ont reconnu la responsabilité de l’administration française dans ses exactions. Mais sans invalider pour autant l'ordonnance du 9 août 1944 qui dénie à ce régime toute légitimité ou « héritage » de la Troisième République, les étapes du Gouvernement provisoire constituant la seule continuité de la République française. De ce fait sont considérés comme nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du gouvernement provisoire de la République française. L'acte dit-loi du 20 décembre 1940 publié le 26 mars 1941 (dit également Charte des sports) dont cette affiche assure la propagande relève pleinement de cette mesure. Attachée à un texte législatif emprunt de nullité, son existence en tant que commande d'Etat serait donc également nulle et elle relèverait bien du cas général décrit par User:olevy.
Argumentation peu ou prou avancée déjà pour la défense de l’affiche rouge. Celle-ci publiée conjointement par les troupes d’Occupation en zone occupée et l’Etat français en zone libre est, à ce dernier titre, bien comparable au cas présent. Le maintien de ce fichier sur Commons n’est pas d’ailleurs pas unique : en consultant cette catégorie on relève 4 autres documents graphiques comparables – 3 affiches de propagande et un “bon point” scolaire – produits par le gouvernement de Vichy qui ne semblent pas poser de problèmes. Aucun cependant ne mentionne aussi expressement son rapport au dit-régime que celui-ci via son bandeau inférieur. Alors pourquoi le supprimer quand les termes de l’argumentation initiale de la demande sont elles-mêmes invalides comme le montre la comparaison du fichier versé à celui du site utilisé comme référence de copyvo dont il ne peut techniquement émaner ?--Claude PIARD (talk) 10:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour,
- Dans ce cas, je pense que le fait que l'affiche ait été commandé par le régime de Vichy n'a pas d'incidence sur les droits d'auteur. A mon avis, la situation est claire, soit les droits ont été transférés à l'Etat, et alors l'affiche est dans le domaine public (plus de 70 ans depuis la publication), soit les droits n'ont pas été transférés, et alors, elle n'est pas dans le domaine public (l'auteur n'étant pas mort depuis plus de 70 ans). Je n'ai aucune idée si l'ordonnance du 9 août 1944 a annulé les droits d'auteur des œuvres artistiques du régime de Vichy, mais ces œuvres ayant plus de 70 ans, elles ne seraient de toutes façons plus couvertes par le droit d'auteur.
- Il est possible que les droits aient été transférés à l'Etat, mais c'est loin d'être certain. Le seul moyen d'en être vraiment sûr serait de retrouver le contrat liant l'auteur de l'affiche à l'Etat français. Pas facile. Désolé de ne pas pouvoir être plus précis. La décision concernant cette affiche devrait s'appliquer aussi aux fichiers suivent, si l'auteur est connu :
- File:Vichy War Production Propaganda.jpg <- licence OK si auteur inconnu
- File:Les 21 points du S.O.I..jpg
- File:Vichy02.jpg
- Dans tous les cas, la licence de ces fichiers n'est pas la bonne. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Pour la formule de la licence, c'est celle qui est retenue pour File:Affiche rouge.jpg. Quant à l'ordonnance de 1944 elle considère bien comme nuls et de nul effet tous les actes constitutionnels législatifs ou réglementaires, ainsi que les arrêtés pris pour leur exécution, sous quelque dénomination que ce soit, promulgués sur le territoire continental postérieurement au 16 juin 1940 et jusqu'au rétablissement du gouvernement provisoire de la République française (sic). Le seul problème est de savoir si celà s'étend aux documents de propagande et de vulgarisation des dits-texte. Car cette affiche relève manifestement de la mise en oeuvre de la loi du 20 décembre 1940 publié le 26 mars 1941. Et les trois fichiers que tu cites ci-dessus ne sont pas les seuls à relever de ce contexte. Par exemple :
- Il serait dommage de faire disparaître toutes les illustrations concernant cette période au moment même où la limite des 70 ans est atteinte par leur commanditaire alors qu'elles on survévu jusqu'ici sans problèmes. Cordialement.--Claude PIARD (talk) 08:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- L'Affiche rouge avait été supprimée, et été restaurée, car auteur anonyme publiée depuis plus de 70 ans. J'ai changé la licence. File:We French Workers Warn You...Defeat Means Slavery, Starvation, Death - NARA - 534126.jpg est une production américaine, aps française. Oui, ça serait dommage, mais c'est le cas de nombreuses images supprimées à cause de droits d'auteur inadaptés au monde numérique moderne. Je suis le premier à le regretter, et le critiquer. Mais c'est un autre débat... Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dans le cas présent l'affiche "est attribuée à ...." par un site de vente mais son examen attentif, autant que faire se peut, ne montre pas de signature explicite. Et si ça peut te rassurer, elle est déjà publiée depuis 2002 sans mention de copyright avec 2 autres affiches de la même époque - le serment de l'athlète (signé Jean Willemot) et la fête nationale de la sportive (sans signature visible) - en hors texte couleur d'un ouvrage de luxe : Images de 150 ans d'EPS, par Jean Zorro, éditions AEEPS, Le Havre, ISBN 2-90 2568-13-4. Si cette publication devait poser problème, celui-ci aurait donc probablement déjà surgit, le-dit ouvrage étant devenu un grand classique. Or comme collaborateur de celui-ci, je peux confirmer que ce n'est pas le cas et le fait que les documents de propagande de l'Etat "de fait" du maréchal Pétain soient bien du domaine public reste très vraisemblable.
- A l'occasion je te rappelle également que Patrick Rogel a fondé sa demande ici sur un autre argument : le copyvo d'une reproduction de site dont je pense avoir démontré l'invraisemblance. Trancher sur cette accusation invalide en laissant la porte ouverte à une autre demande mieux motivée est peut-être une solution provisoire ? Mais à tout prendre et en dernier lieu il serait encore préférable de supprimer plus ou moins arbitrairement ce fichier que mettre les autres en péril, ce qui serait une catastrophe documentaire.--Claude PIARD (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ce ne serait d'ailleurs pas la première suppression insolite sur le fond : bien que n'en étant pas l'auteur, j'ai jadis lutté vainement contre la suppression de la "une" d’un exemplaire hebdomadaire de 1920 du Petit journal illustré. Celle-ci fut retirée au prétexte qu’elle contenait une oeuvre d'Octave Guillonnet mort en 1967. En fait une reproduction à l’eau forte (et non un fac-simile) de son tableau représentant la fête fédérale de gymnastique de 1901, reproduction tirée et retirée à partir de 1909 à des miliers d'exemplaires en divers formats à la demande de l’Etat. Ajoutons que celle-ci était mèlée à d’autres éléments - dont deux portraits - directement incrustés dans son espace de reproduction, lui-même inclus dans la charte graphique du journal. Il ne s'agissait donc pas à l'évidence d'une oeuvre originale protégée mais bien de la "une" d'un quotidien dont la collection se trouve maintenant amputée d'un élément important pour l'histoire du sport. De surcroÎt une des rares à ne pas être disponible sur Gallica.--Claude PIARD (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- L'Affiche rouge avait été supprimée, et été restaurée, car auteur anonyme publiée depuis plus de 70 ans. J'ai changé la licence. File:We French Workers Warn You...Defeat Means Slavery, Starvation, Death - NARA - 534126.jpg est une production américaine, aps française. Oui, ça serait dommage, mais c'est le cas de nombreuses images supprimées à cause de droits d'auteur inadaptés au monde numérique moderne. Je suis le premier à le regretter, et le critiquer. Mais c'est un autre débat... Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per Yann JuTa 06:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
