Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/04/07
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Upload mistake by original user. Did not have permission of person in photo.Melt989 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 02:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Datei-GRAPLIFT Graphen Weltraumlift.PNG
no expresive permission from the person in the picture Shrikanthv (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio: http://www.cinetrooth.com/2014/12/parvathy-ratheesh-actress-profile.html Yann (talk) 14:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
The image name is misspelled - correct version ("fiŝista" instead of "fisiŝta") here: Image:Klaipėda Kopgalis muzea bieno - fiŝista domo.jpg -- ThomasPusch 21:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) (the uploader)
Deleted. Please use {{bad name}} for errors in images's names. Axxgreazz (talk) 03:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The Swedish Copyright Legislation: Article 43. † 2003. Fingalo 14:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Fingalo 14:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Speedy close, withdrawn by nominator. PatríciaR msg 15:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
copyvio: Screenshot of copyrighted google maps data; google watermark clearly visible. maps-for-free only provides the relief layer under CC license, the google layer is copyright google and non free. LosHawlos 19:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Deleted. Lupo 09:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Files in Category:Wikiproject:Icons on pl.wiki
[edit]Seams never used duplicates of icons as test or proposal with yellow background (which was in this time only for IE6 reasonable).
- File:Wikiproject afc icon.png
- File:Wikiproject books icon.png
- File:Wikiproject database icon.png
- File:Wikiproject portal icon.png
- File:Wikiproject stats icon.png
- File:Wikiproject talk icon.png
- File:Wikiproject template icon.png
- File:Wikiproject todo icon.png
- File:Wikiproject users icon.png
↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 20:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Kept: they are not really duplicates. ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 21:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Krd 05:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, it's not an own creation. Wanjan (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Closed: Changed to Speedy. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Not needed Rezonansowy (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The file is a duplicate of File:Losone San Rocco 060415 1.jpg (uploaded by error). NAC (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted and redirected Sreejith K (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Era un archivio di più di qualche anno fa ma viene dalla Biblioteca nacional di Madrid. Scusate Insetto1 (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Era un archivio di più di qualche anno fa ma viene dalla Biblioteca nacional di Madrid. Scusate Insetto1 (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Moshetshuva (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable
Motopark (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agree with deletion. Taivo (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Matiia (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. Fry1989 eh? 18:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I agree. Michael Barera (talk) 02:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
File:Visita de Secretario Adjunto de Estado para el Hemisferio Occidental de Estados Unidos, Arturo Valenzuela al Presidente, Rafael Correa (4497046729).jpg
[edit]"Foto: Cortesía AFP" = "Photo: Courtesy of AFP" = not Cancillería del Ecuador's photo. Only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rodolphe Soligny (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, not used, without useful descriptions so not in scope
- File:Ser.jpg
- File:Portrait Rodolphe.jpg
- File:Rodoplphe Soligny.jpg
- File:Rodoplphe Soligny et Clémentine Célarié.png
Avron (talk) 19:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The EXIF information states that Michael Muench is the copyright holder of that photo, therefor the given license is as dubious as the given authorship. 32X (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
According to the EXIF information the copyright holder is Uwe Dillenberg and print or republishing of that photo is only allowed with a permission. 32X (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 20:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot of http://www.bikesantiago.cl/. Warko (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Not used. I don't see that the subject is notable. The poor description doesn't let me find out if he's the subject of a Wikipedia article. I think it might be another case of abuse of Commons. Out of scope, probably. Dontreader (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be free image, poor documentation, English wikipedia uses a fair use image instead of this one.
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Advertisement; out of project scope Ankry (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Persian Literature (talk · contribs)
[edit]These seem to be book covers or something.
Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
The image itself was not uploaded. Leyo 22:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong Licensing. The logo surely holds some rights, cause it belongs to TVN holding company. Pit rock (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Low quality OSX II (talk) 22:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, part of a Flickr guessing game. OSX II (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It is a personal image with an insulting comment Columbusalbus (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Low quality OSX II (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Low quality OSX II (talk) 23:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, low quality CGI. OSX II (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope personal file. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope personal photo. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope personal file. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Photo of a painting in a museum. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ww2censor as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Permission is no issue, but the image seems to be a unneeded crop from File:ChileMarines.jpg --Didym (talk) 00:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong source, dubious license. See [1] and [2]. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete permission is an issue because the source is not the url of the image source page, so there is no way to verify the permission claimed. Without that there is no permission. Ww2censor (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:ChileMarines.jpg where it is claimed that the source is [3]. So? Yann (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per source given at linked DR. Basvb (talk) 16:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
no offense please, but link to facebook may be worth to be discussed as possibly crv, Roland zh (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 10:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Amitie 10g (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU. Yann (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Uploaded27 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Poor quality images, no exif, probably not Own work
Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: TV screenshots. Yann (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot of a non-free software: [4]. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 03:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
An image containing only the text "WTFPL" that was only used as a supposed logo of the WTFPL (which had no logo at the time). Since the WTFPL has a real logo now, this image serves no purpose (and even before it only served to misinform). Keφr (keep talk here) 05:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Unused at the moment, and rather pointless, five sans-serif letters where the same letters as Bitstream Vera Sans aren't available, so even a "must work on machines without any Latn font" excuse is not applicable: Delete –Be..anyone (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Likely non-free logo which was uploaded for a page on Wikipedia. Deryck Chan (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Image quality not good NIJO K K (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work, uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 13:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
image quality low NIJO K K (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work, uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Schoolchildren are kidding Animaloid (talk) 06:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Children's drawing, out of scope. Yann (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:1975 in Spain
[edit]The copyright of a text, photographed or not, remains in Spain, at least, for 70 years. These are pictures of non-trivial texts and therefore, the text copyright remains
Discasto talk 06:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Cropped. Only signatures.--Coentor (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Old versions deleted. Yann (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-free derivative works (advertisements) are too prominent and not sufficiently de minimis, unfortunately. (Nominating for deletion as tagging with {{Copyvio}} was reverted.) — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Image was uploaded by myself. It's duplicate with this. Norden1990 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, low quality, out of scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 10:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Obs.: High wiki use. Unlikely to be own work, considering previously published via (example) http://www.fotolog.com/lauryta_55/38391122/ (2007). Uploader related: "own work" versus Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bienvenidomieldeabejas.PNG (copyrighted work by "nicobou") Gunnex (talk) 11:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly missing permission. --McZusatz (talk) 15:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. Not own work, but taken from https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/dibe/relict/22606 Henxter (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. Not own work, but taken from https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/dibe/relict/22608 Henxter (talk) 11:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Нет АИ. Это не достоверный флаг Кара Коюнлу 37.190.59.17 11:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
This is not Karakoyunlu flag, because not the source. And this is file should delete!--Страна Гор (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. Source is already given. Kaygtr (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
For me this image looks like a photograph made at club (FC Sheriff) photoshooting. I don't think user Kodru is the author like he wrote in description XXN, 12:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The same i can say about File:Matías Degra.jpg. According EXIF data, images author is ‘Sokolov & Adjem’; and first photo was took on 24 June 2014, second image - on 2 July 2014. Images was uploaded on commons on 17 and 18 December respectively. XXN, 12:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- А почему Вы считаете, что я не мог делать эти фотографии или по Вашему мнению я не мог работать в клубе, при условии что занимаюсь статьями о футбольном клубе "Шериф" в русской Википедии. Метаданные присутствуют, по ним видно, когда, где и каким фотоаппаратом были сделаны фотографии. Добавлю, что планирую залить состав всей команды, но не доходят руки. --Kodru (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- На счет ‘Sokolov & Adjem’, мне что теперь надо создавать еще одну учетную запись, чтобы разместить фотографии? Поменял в авторах на Sokolov & Adjem, если это так принципиально) --Kodru (talk) 12:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- А почему Вы считаете, что я не мог делать эти фотографии или по Вашему мнению я не мог работать в клубе, при условии что занимаюсь статьями о футбольном клубе "Шериф" в русской Википедии. Метаданные присутствуют, по ним видно, когда, где и каким фотоаппаратом были сделаны фотографии. Добавлю, что планирую залить состав всей команды, но не доходят руки. --Kodru (talk) 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No permission. Yann (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: as per User talk:A.Savin#Вопрос по фотографиям. Yann (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hademus Studio (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of project scope,
- File:Affiche A2 - Kracht gitaar.pdf
- File:"De kracht van de gitaar" - Het gitaarboek waarmee iedereen kan leren gitaar spelen!.jpg
- File:"De kracht van de gitaar".jpg
- File:Kris De Bruyne2.jpg
Motopark (talk) 12:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Uncertain copyright. Yann (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful license, it's an artwork. 91.210.4.1 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No permission from artist. Yann (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful license. It's an atwork of an author died in 2000s. 91.210.4.1 13:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
License in the source is the standard YouTube license Discasto talk 13:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- CC-BY-SA declared in closing credits. --Palu (talk) 13:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK. Yann (talk) 14:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Krishnacollege (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no meta-data, not used, minimal text in description
- File:MESA Club.gif
- File:LIBRARY Kec.jpg
- File:STUDENTS.jpg
- File:S-EEE.jpg
- File:NSS.jpg
- File:RAMP.jpg
- File:MECH.jpg
- File:LAB Mech.jpg
- File:HOSTEL.jpg
- File:DANCE.jpg
- File:COL.jpg
- File:CONVO.jpg
- File:CNC Lab.jpg
- File:BLITZ.jpg
Motopark (talk) 14:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2015 (UTC) 10 let věrnosti fanoušků svému klubu.
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
image too small to be useful Ytoyoda (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a thumbnail of the image here: http://us.soccerway.com/teams/georgia/fc-zestafoni/3213/ Ytoyoda (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Image appears to be from here: http://simurqpfk.az/ru/read/912.html Ytoyoda (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be from the club's official website: http://www.fctorpedo.ge/index.php?eng&cat=46&mode=1 Ytoyoda (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Reverse version of this image: http://www.netjoven.pe/deportes/60187/Futbol-peruano-Seleccion-nacional-jugara-eliminatorias-en-el-estadio-Nacional.html Ytoyoda (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
copyright [5] Uğurkent (talk) 15:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
unused image of unknown people Rodrigolopes (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
DELETE
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Colmarstraße9-11.jpg Commons:Deletion requests/Bahnhofplatz (St. Gallen)
Page was incorrectly created. Should be a Category
Deleted: Empty. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
reason=wrong item. Lantus (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by Fastily. Yann (talk) 14:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless is it just my computer not being able to read it, this file is corrupt. Unless someone say that they can read it, since it is unused and corrupted it should be deleted. - ARTEST4ECHO (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete Image quality is fine, but this does not look like a typical own-work concert image of en:Laura Finocchiaro; probable copyright violation. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleted: by Polarlys. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Anoher mistake in the name of the file: the name of the town. A brand new file will be created now Christophe Brajon (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Wrong file name. The right file nams has been since uploaded : TomaTSocolescu-Paulesti-PrimariaN&B-400.jpg Christophe Brajon (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. Yann (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
"aimable autorisation" n'est pas suffisant, sous quelle licence Forez-info a-t-il mis cette photo ?
"kindly given" is not enought: witch licence was really choosen by Forez-info? --MGuf (d) 12:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Wikijoe never answered to my message about that problem. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Érico Júnior Wouters. Yann (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Poor-quality image, we have an SVG of this coat of arms. Fry1989 eh? 18:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
not uploaded by photographer Yger (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
not uploaded by photographer Yger (talk) 18:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. No permission. Yann (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
por que si Stevenocae (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. Yann (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Non-free AFP photo. Only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid copyright license. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose not valid reason, it is probably when the photo took place for reason journalist took photo in common so probably AFP place it in cc2, to permitt all journalist to use it. Olivier LPB (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- What do you mean "not valid reason"? If the license wasn't issued by the legitimate copyright holder (and it's pretty clear it wasn't), that's a perfectly valid reason for deletion. Again, only the legitimate copyright holder can issue a valid copyright license. The legitimate copyright holder of this photo is Filippo Monteforte for Agence France-Presse. It is not Diariocrítico de Venezuela. The fact that Filippo Monteforte published the photo through AFP means that news organisations that pay for a subscription to AFP's services are allowed to use the photo. AFP is a for-profit news agency. They make money by charging people for the right to use their photos. They do not publish their content under a free license, and they do not allow sublicensing. (And shouldn't you know all this if you're a license reviewer?) —LX (talk, contribs) 06:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Delete per LX. Btw: the file is cropped, original can be found (published on same day) at (example) http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/photo-gallery-the-humble-pope-francis-fotostrecke-94415-3.html (credit: "AFP") or (cropped) via http://u.afp.com/y3Z or here (© AFP - All rights reserved). Gunnex (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
incorrect redirect Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Iran does not have a red ensign. Fry1989 eh? 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Iran does not have a blue ensign. Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Ian does not have a white ensign. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, not a real flag. Fry1989 eh? 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
واترمارک روی عکس / Watermark on photo ¤ Omid 21:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the uploader must prove that this image is "own work". I found it here: https://www.tumblr.com/search/shannon%20pix%20williams Also, a better description of your uploads would be appreciated. Dontreader (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Oh dear, we might have a copyvio here: http://www.segye.com/content/html/2015/03/05/20150305005412.html Dontreader (talk) 21:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
See w:Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 February 8#File:Persian and I, III, Here comes the Resurrection Day.jpg. Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned personal photo. Out of scope. Missvain (talk) 05:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Photo of Drew Goddard and Jenny Mollen. Kelly (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Great, thanks so much for the research! Missvain (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the image, after talking to someone who has more legal knowledge than me. Graffiti is a grey area under U.S. law, as no one can profit from illegal activity. But the copyright is automatically applied even to unlawful works. Which at the time of creating the image I didn't know.
Link to the original copyrighted work.
Militaryace (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Deleted: by Zirland Yann (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the profile picture of his Twitter account: https://twitter.com/dannymaconline It was most likely taken from a magazine. The uploader must prove that he or she took the picture. Dontreader (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Lovetotype. I hope you saw my reply on your talk page. Please tell your agent to read what I wrote there, as well as whatever they tell you at Commons:OTRS/Noticeboard. The photographer's permission in this case is key. Good luck. Dontreader (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Hello again, Lovetotype. At this point I have no choice but to assume bad faith on your part. You deleted your own reply, but the real problem is that on the Twitter account of Danny Mac, he wrote on February 6 that this picture was taken by Virtuoso Imaging. I went to the Facebook page of Virtuoso Imaging, and I found the picture in black and white, here: https://www.facebook.com/virtuosoimaging/photos/pb.209358579254697.-2207520000.1428477816./328434670680420/?type=3&theater
- What you did by uploading that picture was a copyright violation because that page states that the image was taken by Drew Tommons. Now you've simply decided to ignore my advice on your talk page and upload a different picture, which has been flagged already. Good luck. Dontreader (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- There is a ticket, so OK or not? Yann (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the information, Yann. I checked the file page and everything looks fine to me. I must trust the OTRS volunteer who processed the declaration of consent. Thanks again. Dontreader (talk) 19:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 19:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong license. Replaced by own personal photo.
Deleted: copyright violation, and no FoP in Russia for modern monuments anyway. Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Wrong license. Replaced by own personal photo.
Deleted: OTRS needed Ymblanter (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Senate of Chile website is different than National Congress Library. Senate web is not licensed under Creative Commons. Warko (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Senate and Chamber's multimedia is part of the files maked by the National Congress Library. Otto Baesler (talk) 22:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- No. Those are independent websites. --Warko (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Look this {{CC-Senado de Chile}}. Otto Baesler (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- A template that you created, without verification of the licences that comes from Senate website? Sorry. --Sfs90 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Senate of Chile website is different than National Congress Library. Senate web is not licensed under Creative Commons Sfs90 (talk) 02:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyrighted Ymblanter (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neylabelmaachi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Please see our project scope. A few copyvios, a few pranks, nothing I could find of worth.
- File:YANO PARTICIPATION.jpg
- File:STAR FINANCE Selim BELMAACHI.jpg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI.jpeg
- File:ERGIS Selim BELMAACHI.jpg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI Représentant SIGER.jpg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI Representing SIGER.png
- File:Mounir EL MAJIDI Selim BELMAACHI.png
- File:Corruption- SELIM BELMAACHI.jpg
- File:Ergis Selim Belmaachi.JPG
- File:SELIM Belmaachi.jpg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI .jpg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI Tafwit passation.jpg
- File:SeLIM BELMAACHI.jpg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI.jpg
- File:Selim.Belmaachi.jpeg
- File:Belmaachiselim.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi Tafwit passation.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi,,.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi ..jpg
- File:NBelmaachi Selim.jpg
- File:Selim BelmaachiN.jpg
- File:Neylaselim Belmaachi.png
- File:SelimNeyla Belmaachi.jpeg
- File:Neyla Belmaachi Selim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi Image.jpg
- File:NSelim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selimbelmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi SDC10536.JPG
- File:Belmaachi selim.jpeg
- File:NeylaSelim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Mounir Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim neyla Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Neyla selim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi et Rochdi Chraïbi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi Neyla.jpg
- File:Neyla Selim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Neyla Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi3.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi0.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi,.jpeg
- File:1Selim Belmaachi.jpg
- File:Selim Belmaachi-.jpeg
- File:Selim Belmaachi1.jpeg
- File:Selim Belmaachi..jpg
Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neylabelmaachi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI WOMAN.jpeg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI DENISE.jpeg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI Information.jpeg
- File:SELIM BELMAACHI -.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI DY.jpeg
- File:Selim Belmaachi Représentant SIGER.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI Seeking.jpeg
- File:M. Selim BELMAACHI.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI EIRGS.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI SIGRE.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI IGERS.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI SIREG.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI GERSI.jpeg
- File:Selim BELMAACHI ERGIS.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neylabelmaachi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope, more of a prank, possible copyvios as well as there are missing EXIF/permissions.
Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. --Krd 16:32, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
How can Library of Congress images which come directly from their webpage not be automatically PD (Template:PD-LOC has been deprecated, requiering a specific PD motivation for each image). But when the same image comes from Flickr it's automatically PD by magic. Why is an image such as this automatically PD because it comes via Flickr when the image page on the Smithsonian webpage says nothing about a license and the smithsonian copyright page mumbles about images may be protected by copyright and Commercial use is restricted. I'd say that the best thing is to create templates similar to {{LOC-image}} for the different instituetes connected to Flickr Commons, but still require a specific motivated license for each image. /Lokal_Profil 13:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, that was fast :) I created this template for the use within Flinfo, since people didn't want me to use Template:PD-because. LoC and Lighthouse images still get their license tags from Flinfo (and Magnus' upload bot), only Smithsonian and Brooklyn museum are automatically tagged with this one. We're the problem in deleting specific images instead of the whole template? When some people upload copyvios to flickr and tag them as cc-by-sa, we don't delete that template either. Also: It's not PD, it's no known copyright restrictions. --Flominator (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Neutral Keep Sadly, for now, the default Smithsonian release, as linked from each Flickr image page, is {{Noncommercial}} (speedy!). It conflicts starkly (in my mind) with the "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS" statement at Flickr. They know better and will probably change their web page soon.
.jpg){kind=link}
_20.31.59.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![80 File:Anthony "Pickachu"Tarter.jpg](#File:Anthony_"Pickachu"Tarter.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_20.31.59.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_20.31.59.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_20.31.59.png){kind=link}
_20.31.59.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/04/07#c-EugeneZelenko-2015-04-07T14:46:00.000Z-File:Anthony_"Pickachu"Tarter.jpg){kind=link}
![14:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/04/07#c-Yann-2015-04-14T14:03:00.000Z-File:Anthony_"Pickachu"Tarter.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- So, until then, assume the worst and tag on a case-by-case basis per Profil's nomination.
- This is sad, firstly because the Flickr disclaimer is similar in spirit to Wikimedia's own disclaimers, and secondly because Smithsonian librarians have probably put in a lot of research to catalog pictures as 'No known copyright restrictions', and they (as individual information scientists, not as a body corporate) probably want the world to have unrestricted use of the archive they have sweated over building.
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Changed vote to keep, based on the discussion below, and the changes by Flominator. Since uploaders will be encouraged by this template to use a more specific PD rationale, I think it will be very useful, and I don't foresee a large risk of harm. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment Something like "This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons:Licensing for more information." (copypaste LoC) should be added, and the coplyleftsymbol be changed into something else. The problem here is that the template gives the impression of being an allowed Commons copyright tag, which it - as far as I can see - isn't. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The Smithsonian's webpage indicates the possibility of copyright applying, the others are explicit that no copyright is known to apply. Possibly a tag which requires the user to specify the institution and provide a further tag for Smithsonian items is required? Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Since this template is currently in Category:License tags it very much gives the impression of being a license tag. I have nothing against this tag if it also requires a proper copyright tag (and possibly a LOC-image or similar). But experience has shown me that this will (just as for {{Insignia}} and {{Coat of Arms}}) result in a lot of images tagged only with non-copyright tags. Also @ Mostlyharmless: I agree that the Smithsonian is more problematic then the others but even for the others the above tag wouldn't be enough, thats why we deprecated {{PD-LOC}} to start with. /Lokal_Profil 12:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom's logic. Usually the original tif files available from the government sites are much higher resolution, we should be converting and using those rather than taking copies from flickr anyways. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- CommentThis is a bit more complicated than I first thought. I can definitely appreciate how much a specific tag would help for automated uploads from the Flickr commons... either we have one, or force the use of PD-because (making them harder to identify), or disallow uploads from Flickr Commons collections we can't map to another tag, even though they are virtually certain to be OK. The first two reasons given on the template though are duplicates of other tags, which would be preferable to this one (PD-LOC was deprecated for the same reason). Some of these Smithsonian images seem to be non-U.S. works; while they may be PD in the U.S. (which is all that is needed to include them on Flickr under that license) they may not be in their country of origin -- that is the difficulty with allowing them on commons unconditionally. The third and fourth reasons though are definitely legitimate for a separate tag... the question is, which ones do those reasons apply to? As for the statement on the smithsonian website, I think that is irrelevant for the Flickr Commons images; the Flickr statement means they consider the image to have no restrictions (which would mean no commercial restrictions too). The Smithsonian in the recent past has made dubious claims of copyright and other rights (see here for an article about it, and here is one example where they are claiming copyright on the digitization of an 1855 photo), so the linked copyright page may just be in line with that. If the Smithsonian chooses to put those images on Flickr with that license statement, I think Commons can accept them (with the exception of foreign works where the copyright has not expired in the country of origin; that is probably rare but looks to be possible in the Smithsonian submissions). Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Question If we make this one a tag that still requires another license tag and people upload with Magnus' bot - how can we contact them and notify them that there image might be deleted? --Flominator (talk) 09:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's true, but the same thing applies to the images if they are uploaded using a badly formulated PD-Because or similar. One of the reasons I'm not a big fan of anonymous uploding. Might be easier hen to not allow them via the bot but instead have a notice which explains how to upload them (with all necessary templates and source info) manually. it can even mention that going for the original source might give better images (as Gmaxwell mentioned). /Lokal_Profil 12:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
- Keep Maybe this template has been used in inappropriate conditions. However, there could be conditions wher eit is appropriate.--Londoneye (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment If the result is keep, I would request 2 changes:
- Remove the PD-icon.svg image (as, sadly, we can't assume from the source that it is PD)
- Move from Category:License tags to Category:Marker templates
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- I would disagree -- the images are almost certain to be PD. The one exception is foreign works which are PD in the US, and thus fine to put on Flickr under those conditions, but not in their country of origin, meaning they are not OK for commons. Those are probably rare, but the Smithsonian may have some of those. I'm just undecided if there may be enough of those to justify not using the tag, which seems otherwise valid. The other reason is that the first two reasons would be (by far) the two most common reasons, and are represented in other tags. That is probably not enough reason to remove it though, since it can also serve as a source tag and is useful for automated uploads. Maybe we could keep it, but use the Image:PDmaybe-icon.svg icon, and note the possibility of foreign works still being copyrighted (and in those cases, the image should be deleted). I'm still on the fence though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Carl, you make a good case, I am withdrawing my Delete vote. Does the US federal government blanket PD apply to the Smithsonian, as it is kind of a public corporation for which the federal government has some governance responsibility? If not, then we can't yet accept images created by their own curators or staff photographers on their current license, notwithstanding a Flickr upload. (Foreign works PD in the US should be copied from Commons to English Wikipedia if they are needed there and come up for deletion here.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both for this excellent suggestion. --Flominator (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- Carl, you make a good case, I am withdrawing my Delete vote. Does the US federal government blanket PD apply to the Smithsonian, as it is kind of a public corporation for which the federal government has some governance responsibility? If not, then we can't yet accept images created by their own curators or staff photographers on their current license, notwithstanding a Flickr upload. (Foreign works PD in the US should be copied from Commons to English Wikipedia if they are needed there and come up for deletion here.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- The PD-USGov question is kinda interesting. Most Smithsonian employees are federal employees, so it really should apply most of the time. They do have some employees paid through their trust fund though, and they would own copyright in works created by those employees (see here (PDF) for a statement by a Smithsonian counsel on the matter). If the Smithsonian will not identify which is which, it can make things difficult. The Flickr statement works in either situation, but not for images on the Smithsonian's website. Also see here for a bit more of a discussion... that organization later requested that the Smithsonian put images online at Flickr, so that appears to be the beginning of the process which has resulted in them joining the Flickr Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment This posting at commons-l may also be of interest to all of you. --Flominator (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- We may need to be careful about terms like "public domain"... when we use it, we mean more in the "lack of copyright protection" sense only (as noted in a footnote of Commons:Licensing). For many others, that term also connotes the lack of trademark or other restrictions. We are mainly concerned about copyright here, so if there are "No known copyright restrictions" that really should be enough for us. Obviously personality rights may still exist in the photographs, which can restrict certain commercial usage, and trademarks may still exist too. The Smithsonian can't give away any rights it did not have in the first place, and it would not generally own those types of rights. "Commercial use" in a copyright context I think generally means using it to make money, while in trademark or other contexts has different, more limited meanings. If the Smithsonian is really trying to limit usages through an avenue other than copyright, that would be rather odd and it would be interesting to know the details, but I think that if they are saying there are no copyright restrictions, then that is OK. For the portrait collection, it doesn't sound as though the Smithsonian would own any copyrights in the first place, so those would have to have entered the public domain by means of PD-US, PD-US_not_renewed, Anonymous-EU, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it it's basically reiterating what has been mentioned earlier in this deletion request (and when PD-LOC got deprecated). Basically that there is no blanket license for the images but rather each one has to be analised on a case by case basis. That's why Flickr uses the "no known copyright restrictions" rather then PD. Since Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD (which is why {{PD}} is deprecated) rather then "it's probably PD" I'd say that images with "Flickr-no known copyright restrictions" should not be automatically transferred from Flickr (i.e. our flickr upload bot should consider it a bad license). That doesn't mean that the images won't get to Commons, it just means that when they get here we are more sure that they are indeed as free as we promise our the downstream users that they are. Don't know how the bot works but if it gives error messages for the cc-nc images on commons then there could be a similar error message with information on how to go about investigating if the image is indeed free. For the specific case of the Smithsonian a list of the federally employed photographers and photographers dead since more then 70 years (a Commons project maybe) could make the process easier and more streamlined. /Lokal_Profil 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not exactly... PD-LOC was deprecated because the Library of Congress has an immense amount of copyrighted material, and it also has a lot of foreign material -- a much higher percentage of "PD in the U.S. only". The likelihood of mistaken use (or outright abuse) was much, much higher. The images on Flickr Commons are pretty much all PD, given one of the four criteria. The last two criteria are absolutely legitimate for their own tag, as well. Obviously, it is preferable to have a specific tag, but in this case I am leaning towards thinking that is not a good enough reason to disallow automatic uploads using it. They are virtually certain to be OK, so to prevent automated uploads just because we can't decide which flavor of PD to use seems a bit off-kilter to me. I don't really see the potential for abuse of this tag; if it is on Flickr Commons the chances we can't host it here are really small. It would probably be a good idea for this tag to take an argument (an underlying PD tag, or a value specifying reason #3 or #4), and if present use the regular PD icon, and if not present use the PDmaybe icon, indicating it hasn't been completely verified. The latter ones could be put into a category for easier processing, or identification if it turns out there are many more problems than we thought. PD-LOC created lots more problems than it solved (there were tons of misuses of people assuming anything on loc.gov was fair game), but I don't see the same situation here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Replying to Lokal:
- (1) We don't promise our downstream users anything. General disclaimer says exactly the opposite. I guess you didn't intend me to take your passing mention of a promise literally :)
- (2) I don't see the benefit of bot uploads: we only need a copy on Commons if a Wikimedia project needs an image hosted. Other users can get them direct from Flickr. Shouldn't we encourage uploads only when needed, with tools like Commonist and the upload wizard?
- (3) "Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD" I am leaning the same direction as Carl: For practical purposes, "SI says it is PD" is, to me, a more reliable motivation than, "JoCommonsUser says the author died more than 100 years ago."
- --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- One comment on uploads -- they are not really "automatic" uploads; a commons user chooses to upload the specific image from Flickr. The tools just automate the process of verifying the license, making sure to get the highest-quality version, adding all the source information as completely and accurately as possible, and performing the actual upload. The tools speed up the process and minimize mistakes. We already allow this for all cc-by and cc-by-sa images on Flickr; to disallow Flickr Commons images through the same route seems a bit silly -- and if allowed, we need a license tag. Given how often that Flickr users upload images found on the web and license them randomly, the cc-by images are much more likely to be problems than these. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- As I read it it's basically reiterating what has been mentioned earlier in this deletion request (and when PD-LOC got deprecated). Basically that there is no blanket license for the images but rather each one has to be analised on a case by case basis. That's why Flickr uses the "no known copyright restrictions" rather then PD. Since Commons requires a specific motivation for why something is PD (which is why {{PD}} is deprecated) rather then "it's probably PD" I'd say that images with "Flickr-no known copyright restrictions" should not be automatically transferred from Flickr (i.e. our flickr upload bot should consider it a bad license). That doesn't mean that the images won't get to Commons, it just means that when they get here we are more sure that they are indeed as free as we promise our the downstream users that they are. Don't know how the bot works but if it gives error messages for the cc-nc images on commons then there could be a similar error message with information on how to go about investigating if the image is indeed free. For the specific case of the Smithsonian a list of the federally employed photographers and photographers dead since more then 70 years (a Commons project maybe) could make the process easier and more streamlined. /Lokal_Profil 00:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- We may need to be careful about terms like "public domain"... when we use it, we mean more in the "lack of copyright protection" sense only (as noted in a footnote of Commons:Licensing). For many others, that term also connotes the lack of trademark or other restrictions. We are mainly concerned about copyright here, so if there are "No known copyright restrictions" that really should be enough for us. Obviously personality rights may still exist in the photographs, which can restrict certain commercial usage, and trademarks may still exist too. The Smithsonian can't give away any rights it did not have in the first place, and it would not generally own those types of rights. "Commercial use" in a copyright context I think generally means using it to make money, while in trademark or other contexts has different, more limited meanings. If the Smithsonian is really trying to limit usages through an avenue other than copyright, that would be rather odd and it would be interesting to know the details, but I think that if they are saying there are no copyright restrictions, then that is OK. For the portrait collection, it doesn't sound as though the Smithsonian would own any copyrights in the first place, so those would have to have entered the public domain by means of PD-US, PD-US_not_renewed, Anonymous-EU, etc. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment if we keep (I am still on the fence), a coding expert should code up a parameter to name the source at Flickr Commons (SI, LOC ...), and link directly to that organization's disclaimer, as Flickr staff requested in the email Flominator linked. --InfantGorilla (talk) 09:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Already on my todo-list --Flominator (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Done. Flinfo now puts the link to the disclaimer at the permission field. --Flominator (talk) 21:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think I now vote for Keep, but with changes -- the tag should take a parameter of a more specific license, and if specified, this tag becomes more of a source tag pointing to the extra relevant information on FlickrCommons and source sites, and just including the better license inside. If no license tag parameter is specified, then use the current text with PDmaybe-icon.svg, with an additional message to please add a more specific copyright tag as a parameter if it can be determined. We could even add a separate "source" parameter which would be one of the four known FlickrCommons sources, and the tag could use conditional statements to show the additional links pertinent to that source -- that way the uploading tools just have to add the right "source" parameter to this tag, and we can just update the template if the links change. How easy is it to figure out (automatically via the tools) which organization donated the image to Flickr Commons? Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Flinfo can find out who uploaded the picture and even use uploader-specific parameter. Would be no problem. --Flominator (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Delete or repurpose. The LoC includes many images that are public domain in the US but NOT IN COUNTRY OF ORIGIN. Unless the actual reason the image is PD is known Commons should not accept the images (unless they are just so old copyright would be impossible). -Nard the Bard 21:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thus far, the images the LoC have put on Flickr do not fall into your scenario (the country of origin is the U.S.). If we find specific images which are a problem in the future, we can handle those individually, like always. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep No reason to be more reverent of copyright than LoC or the other institutions, /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, as some LOC images are not free in the country of origin or do not have enough information on their copyright status to keep them here. Many LOC images are not suitable for Commons, they get deleted all the time. Why should we accept a template that allows all LOC images for no reason? This looks like Template:PD. Just trusting the user of the template or the LOC is not enough. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Um... the LoC is only putting actual PD works onto Flickr, not random stuff from their entire catalog which may still be under copyright. This template is only for the images they are putting onto Flickr with this special license, which they carefully vet -- it is not to be used for files which come from loc.gov itself. You are correct in that point; {{PD-LOC}} was deprecated long ago. This is very very different. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, the LOC is not as restrictive about licensing as we are. Thus I oppose any template that allows files from LOC by default, without actually checking the licensing conditions. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is true -- but that is not what this tag is for. This is only for the images they put up on Flickr, and also have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. Thus far they are putting up images from two collections, and being very careful about it -- the FSA/OWI collection (US Government agency, and thus PD-USGov-FSA), and the George Grantham Bain collection (and thus {{PD-Bain}}), both of which are fine. If the LoC says "no known copyright restrictions", that is almost always good enough for us (since they actually are pretty restrictive about which images they place that tag on) -- the only possible difference coming on foreign material, and even that is really rare. We allow images coming from Flickr with cc-by-sa tags by default, which have nowhere near the same level of vetting as the "no known copyright restrictions" images -- it seems fairly ridiculous to not allow these by default as well. The chances of an unacceptable image here are far lower than just about any other avenue through which we receive images. I agree about images directly from loc.gov -- a great many are there still under copyright, and thus do not have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. But this tag is only for the images that the LoC has cross-uploaded to Flickr. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with using this tag. Even if the LOC is very carefully about what the upload to Flickr, I see a potential problem in backtracking. If these are taken from Flickr, then Flickr will be the source and PD-reason will be "because it's on the Commons on Flickr". I think images should still have their original source, e.g. the George Bantham Bain collection, and then be tagged with the actual tag (PD-Bain or whatever applies). This will also avoid problems with differing project laws. Many images on Commons can e.g. not be used on de-wp for licensing reasons. The only sure way to tell whether the image is allowed or not allowed is the tag on Commons. If we put images, that are PD in the US for different reasons together and place a single tag on them, this does not say why the image is considered to be in the Public Domain. All other PD templates we have are related to the original source of the image, and not to a redistributor who is claiming, that the copyright has expired. If it indeed has expired, there is a reason for this (and it is NOT the LOC placing the image on Flickr), which should be indicated on the image description page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Bain collection is also just a collection, and Bain was just a redistributer. There is no difference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The difference is, that the Bain collection likely owned the copyright on the images it collected. As LOC bought the images and released them without any restrictions, these can be deemed free. Unfortunately, the LOC does not have the copyright on most images on its page, thus cannot release them. So we have on the one hand a collection which is now released to the public domain and on the other hand a collection which collects images which might be public domain. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Bain collection is also just a collection, and Bain was just a redistributer. There is no difference. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still disagree with using this tag. Even if the LOC is very carefully about what the upload to Flickr, I see a potential problem in backtracking. If these are taken from Flickr, then Flickr will be the source and PD-reason will be "because it's on the Commons on Flickr". I think images should still have their original source, e.g. the George Bantham Bain collection, and then be tagged with the actual tag (PD-Bain or whatever applies). This will also avoid problems with differing project laws. Many images on Commons can e.g. not be used on de-wp for licensing reasons. The only sure way to tell whether the image is allowed or not allowed is the tag on Commons. If we put images, that are PD in the US for different reasons together and place a single tag on them, this does not say why the image is considered to be in the Public Domain. All other PD templates we have are related to the original source of the image, and not to a redistributor who is claiming, that the copyright has expired. If it indeed has expired, there is a reason for this (and it is NOT the LOC placing the image on Flickr), which should be indicated on the image description page. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 19:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- That is true -- but that is not what this tag is for. This is only for the images they put up on Flickr, and also have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. Thus far they are putting up images from two collections, and being very careful about it -- the FSA/OWI collection (US Government agency, and thus PD-USGov-FSA), and the George Grantham Bain collection (and thus {{PD-Bain}}), both of which are fine. If the LoC says "no known copyright restrictions", that is almost always good enough for us (since they actually are pretty restrictive about which images they place that tag on) -- the only possible difference coming on foreign material, and even that is really rare. We allow images coming from Flickr with cc-by-sa tags by default, which have nowhere near the same level of vetting as the "no known copyright restrictions" images -- it seems fairly ridiculous to not allow these by default as well. The chances of an unacceptable image here are far lower than just about any other avenue through which we receive images. I agree about images directly from loc.gov -- a great many are there still under copyright, and thus do not have the "no known copyright restrictions" tag there. But this tag is only for the images that the LoC has cross-uploaded to Flickr. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- Anyway, the LOC is not as restrictive about licensing as we are. Thus I oppose any template that allows files from LOC by default, without actually checking the licensing conditions. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- The Bain collection is mostly their negatives -- i.e. photos that their employees took, and where they owned the copyright. The collection description says Available online are 39,744 glass negatives and a selection of about 1,600 photographic prints for which copy negatives exist. The Library of Congress is more careful about copyright than almost any other body I am aware of -- which makes some sense, as the U.S. Copyright Office is part of the Library of Congress. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you look at reasons #3 and #4, those are absolutely valid for their own license tag. As you say, reasons #1 and #2 imply that there should be another tag in those situations, since the details can be meaningful in other countries. The purpose of this tag is to allow the half-automated Flickr tools get these images through the Flickr API like any other CC-BY[-SA] images on Flickr, otherwise they would have to be done manually. If you note above, I suggested adding a "license" parameter, which would be either a value indicating that #3 or #4 apply, or the name of a real license tag. If not supplied, then put them in an most-likely-OK-but-not-completely-verified category (with the PD-maybe icon), and asking users to add the correct parameter if they can. It is kind of a weird situation to be sure. But because these images are virtually certain to be allowable here -- much better certainty than virtually any other source we have -- we need to find some solution to allow the Flickr tools to work on them. The question is, what is the best way? Simply disallowing the tag doesn't solve the first problem, which is more damaging then allowing the tag as-is in my opinion, but there may well be a solution which can still satisfy the Flickr tools (maybe with a bit more work on their end) while still giving more information than it does at present (to better satisfy the needs in other countries). Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think a tag saying This is from the Commons on Flickr and thus probably PD. Please review the description and insert a correct licensing tag would be best. However, I still object to this way too generic tag for the reasons I already mentioned (no sanity check by humans, no specific licensing even if the image is unfree in some countries). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want to create another maintenance category? --Flominator (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have a template for images from the Commons on Flickr, but some people obviously do. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is sanity checked by two humans - the LOC librarian and the uploader. As a third check, the new page patrol will see it. Rather than a 4th check, I think that time spent by Commons rights volunteers will catch more violations elsewhere. If it is unfree in some countries (which may occur for some pre-1923 images), then that is the time for a deletion request. At the same time, the image is in the same position as any other usage that doesn't meet Commons policy or non-US laws: Commons provides no warranties, and it is up to the downloader to check if it is lawful in their country, as Commons only provides hosting for Wikimedia projects with the common carrier exemption. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uploaders often don't do sanity checks when transferring images from Flickr or any other easy-to-import source, e.g. Wikipediae. The sanity check of the LOC librarian alone is not enough, as I already pointed out, LOC images are deleted quite frequently, thus the LOC having checked the image is not a valid reason for a PD claim on Commons. Uploaders should research the copyright information to the image (by reading the description on LOC pages or any other means) and then decide, whether the image is OK for Commons or not. Allowing all images from a certain source is known to cause problems (see e.g. Flickr imports). This is one thing for content that was published by the author on some media site as there is no other original source and the reason for the license claim is because the author put it on Flickr with this license. However, the situation with the files of the LOC is quite different: These are not created by the LOC and the copyright of (most of) the images is not owned by the LOC. Thus the LOC cannot publish the images effectively releasing them into the Public Domain (there are some exemptions, see e.g. Bain). So the reason for these images being PD is not the LOC put it on Flickr, but The author died 70 years ago or This was published before 1923 etc.. I do realize, that about 90% of the images the LOC puts on Flickr can be uploaded to Commons without any problems, but I oppose any template which assumes that an image is PD just because it comes from a certain source (which is not the creator) without checking the license and providing information about the actual reason, why the image is PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOC images marked "no known copyright restrictions" shouldn't be deleted very often. They have tons on loc.gov which don't have that, obviously, but those aren't on Flickr -- I would think 99.99% (or more) of the LOC's Flickr Commons images are OK. The Flickr Commons definitely looks like all images there are vetted for copyright, which is much better than any other source. There are many more organizations now, often foreign, which could complicate things certainly (they may not be as careful as the LoC, or make more liberal use of things like EU-Anonymous, but at least they have some provenance information when they do that). There are copyright problems with any source of images we have (including direct user uploads); this is one of the only ones which actually have had their copyright looked at pretty carefully and it seems really silly to disallow the uploads based on not knowing which flavor of PD they are, while allowing uploads from other less-vetted sources. Reasons #3 or #4 are primarily for the other institutions on Flickr Commons; LoC would be either PD-USGov-FSA or PD-Bain as mentioned (I don't think they are putting other collections up there right now). Can you find a single LoC image on Flickr Commons which is not PD? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to search the entire Commons on Flickr now and check the PD status of every image. I mentioned the reasons for my opposing this template several times already: Everything on the Commons on Flickr can and should be tagged with an appropriate licensing tag on Commons, saying why this is PD. Once more, This is on the Flickr Commons is _not_ a valid PD reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is much better to rely on the authority of the LoC professionals who transfer images to FlickR than having amateurs conduct original research into copyright statuses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I don't object to citing the LoC (on Flickr) as a source and using the information provided by the LoC regarding the image. I am just saying, that users should evaluate what info the LoC gives and then decide which copyright tag to use. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is much better to rely on the authority of the LoC professionals who transfer images to FlickR than having amateurs conduct original research into copyright statuses. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I am not going to search the entire Commons on Flickr now and check the PD status of every image. I mentioned the reasons for my opposing this template several times already: Everything on the Commons on Flickr can and should be tagged with an appropriate licensing tag on Commons, saying why this is PD. Once more, This is on the Flickr Commons is _not_ a valid PD reason. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- LOC images marked "no known copyright restrictions" shouldn't be deleted very often. They have tons on loc.gov which don't have that, obviously, but those aren't on Flickr -- I would think 99.99% (or more) of the LOC's Flickr Commons images are OK. The Flickr Commons definitely looks like all images there are vetted for copyright, which is much better than any other source. There are many more organizations now, often foreign, which could complicate things certainly (they may not be as careful as the LoC, or make more liberal use of things like EU-Anonymous, but at least they have some provenance information when they do that). There are copyright problems with any source of images we have (including direct user uploads); this is one of the only ones which actually have had their copyright looked at pretty carefully and it seems really silly to disallow the uploads based on not knowing which flavor of PD they are, while allowing uploads from other less-vetted sources. Reasons #3 or #4 are primarily for the other institutions on Flickr Commons; LoC would be either PD-USGov-FSA or PD-Bain as mentioned (I don't think they are putting other collections up there right now). Can you find a single LoC image on Flickr Commons which is not PD? Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Uploaders often don't do sanity checks when transferring images from Flickr or any other easy-to-import source, e.g. Wikipediae. The sanity check of the LOC librarian alone is not enough, as I already pointed out, LOC images are deleted quite frequently, thus the LOC having checked the image is not a valid reason for a PD claim on Commons. Uploaders should research the copyright information to the image (by reading the description on LOC pages or any other means) and then decide, whether the image is OK for Commons or not. Allowing all images from a certain source is known to cause problems (see e.g. Flickr imports). This is one thing for content that was published by the author on some media site as there is no other original source and the reason for the license claim is because the author put it on Flickr with this license. However, the situation with the files of the LOC is quite different: These are not created by the LOC and the copyright of (most of) the images is not owned by the LOC. Thus the LOC cannot publish the images effectively releasing them into the Public Domain (there are some exemptions, see e.g. Bain). So the reason for these images being PD is not the LOC put it on Flickr, but The author died 70 years ago or This was published before 1923 etc.. I do realize, that about 90% of the images the LOC puts on Flickr can be uploaded to Commons without any problems, but I oppose any template which assumes that an image is PD just because it comes from a certain source (which is not the creator) without checking the license and providing information about the actual reason, why the image is PD. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 12:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- It is sanity checked by two humans - the LOC librarian and the uploader. As a third check, the new page patrol will see it. Rather than a 4th check, I think that time spent by Commons rights volunteers will catch more violations elsewhere. If it is unfree in some countries (which may occur for some pre-1923 images), then that is the time for a deletion request. At the same time, the image is in the same position as any other usage that doesn't meet Commons policy or non-US laws: Commons provides no warranties, and it is up to the downloader to check if it is lawful in their country, as Commons only provides hosting for Wikimedia projects with the common carrier exemption. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have a template for images from the Commons on Flickr, but some people obviously do. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 18:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Do you really want to create another maintenance category? --Flominator (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think a tag saying This is from the Commons on Flickr and thus probably PD. Please review the description and insert a correct licensing tag would be best. However, I still object to this way too generic tag for the reasons I already mentioned (no sanity check by humans, no specific licensing even if the image is unfree in some countries). Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 13:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
ChrisiPK, your comments raise legitimate concerns. Would Carl L's suggestion of a "license" parameter make the template more acceptable to you? --InfantGorilla (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. I am not opposing this template as a source template (like {{LOC-image}}), but as a reason to assume that something is PD. We have a sufficient range of PD templates (with good PD reasons), and these should also be used on the LOC images. I could live with something similar to {{Free screenshot}}. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking more an innocent until proved guilty, since there will be no legal reason for any of these images to be deleted, only a policy one. In other words, the uploader would be expected to fill out the 'license=' parameter, but they may not (perhaps because the Flickr user relied on data not available to the Wikimedia user). If 'license=' remains blank, instead of rejecting the image or categorizing it for deletion, it goes into a special maintenance category Media from Flickr Commons without full copyright status. Can we talk you into that? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he said above that would be a reasonable compromise. Ideally we have a better reason specified as a parameter, but it is virtually impossible for upload bots to figure those out (though they could add the sourcing information of which organization put the image up). I suspect there will be a lot of custom code needed to deal with this particular Flickr license... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above I now have modified Flinfo in order to put the link to the rights statement in the permission field. I'd also like to mention that most of the LoC pictures don't get this template, but {{PD-USGov-FSA}} or {{PD-Bain}} instead. I can also change Flinfo in ordner to write the source as a parameter when inserting this template. But this template should be changed before. --Flominator (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a transfer bot is able to use the right templates for most of the images, I don't see a need for another one. As the licensing with the other images is obviously complicated, those should be reviewed by people with copyright knowledge anyway. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- Images that were transferred to Flickr Commons were reviewed by professionals with copyright competence. I do not see the need for amateurs like ChrisiPK to have another look at it. The restrictive and paranoid attitude on commons goes against the bold line of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example in their asserting {{PD-Art}} also for photographs that European museums claim copyright of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is something completely different. The WMF assumes that non-creative reproductions of Public Domain originals are also in the PD, as only a creative work can be copyrighted. On this issue, we are talking about whether the original image is in the PD and then applying the PD-Art guideline anyway. You mustn't confuse making a decision based on an internationally established concept of copyright with being bold and assuming an image is PD just because a certain site hosts it. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Images that were transferred to Flickr Commons were reviewed by professionals with copyright competence. I do not see the need for amateurs like ChrisiPK to have another look at it. The restrictive and paranoid attitude on commons goes against the bold line of the Wikimedia Foundation, for example in their asserting {{PD-Art}} also for photographs that European museums claim copyright of. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- If a transfer bot is able to use the right templates for most of the images, I don't see a need for another one. As the licensing with the other images is obviously complicated, those should be reviewed by people with copyright knowledge anyway. Regards, -- ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:07, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- As mentioned above I now have modified Flinfo in order to put the link to the rights statement in the permission field. I'd also like to mention that most of the LoC pictures don't get this template, but {{PD-USGov-FSA}} or {{PD-Bain}} instead. I can also change Flinfo in ordner to write the source as a parameter when inserting this template. But this template should be changed before. --Flominator (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think he said above that would be a reasonable compromise. Ideally we have a better reason specified as a parameter, but it is virtually impossible for upload bots to figure those out (though they could add the sourcing information of which organization put the image up). I suspect there will be a lot of custom code needed to deal with this particular Flickr license... Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I was thinking more an innocent until proved guilty, since there will be no legal reason for any of these images to be deleted, only a policy one. In other words, the uploader would be expected to fill out the 'license=' parameter, but they may not (perhaps because the Flickr user relied on data not available to the Wikimedia user). If 'license=' remains blank, instead of rejecting the image or categorizing it for deletion, it goes into a special maintenance category Media from Flickr Commons without full copyright status. Can we talk you into that? --InfantGorilla (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - if there are a reason for a doubt that the image from flickr is not PD, we should not accept it. But to say, we don't want them at all is not the right way. There are a lot of free images we should use, without the the project woult be poorer. Commons is a collection of free files! Marcus Cyron (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Kept. No consensus to delete. Maxim(talk) 16:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
IMO this is not an acceptable license tag because it:
- does not specify any licensing/re-licensing terms
- includes vague wording which suggests that a file bearing this tag may or may not be free (which is a violation of COM:PCP)
Should this template be deprecated/deleted, I propose that any file using this tag which can be proven to be available under a Commons-compatible license be tagged as such, and any file which cannot be proven free is deleted. -FASTILY 04:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per my statement. --A.Savin 10:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- KeepTrying to beat a horse dead 7 years ago? How many of the images tagged with this license have been deleted as copyright violations since 2008? Almost none if you tried to mke some accounts, so this is a DR in search of a problem. And remember that the institucions using this license in Commons are acedemic and cedible institucions and not somrone anonymous trying to flickrwash some copyright violations. Tm (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- If this is a license (as you state), then I really don't understand something essential in COM:Licensing policy... --A.Savin 12:30, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is a public domain template. There are no licensing statements. "No known copyright restrictions" means there are no restrictions at all based on copyright law (or the economic right in other countries' law; moral rights would still apply). It is a more accurate description of what we use "public domain" for; the wording is precise. It's always possible for a judge to create some new rights out of the blue which nobody was prepared for -- thus the "no known". For reasons #1 and #2, it is more of a source tag correct; it's just that the institution has done research to see that copyright has expired in their country (just like the Library of Congress does, which is where the wording comes from). Reasons #3 and #4 are basically identical to a PD-author tag. We need this tag to enable imports of free files from Flickr; if additional more specific tags could be added via research that would be good, but to delete the template (and thus validly free files tagged with it, and make the import from Flickr Commons far more tedious) makes no sense to me. There might be a few cases where a museum has works not from their own country and thus has country of origin issues (or non-US museums might have US copyright issues), but again that does not justify the removal of the tag. I recommended in the past that we be able to pass an argument to the tag, which (for reasons #1 and #2) would be the underlying PD tag, so we could display it. #3 and #4 are basically the same; a PD-author tag. I think that would be an improvement. But I don't see any new arguments here over the long discussions we had before; I think it's a necessary tag, and a valid one. The vast, vast majority of such material on Flickr Commons should be fine to upload here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I can see two options here that I'd support. Firstly, we could delete, which would be my preferred solution; the tag at the moment doesn't confirm that an image is free to use in both the US and the country of original publication, which is essential for its use on the Commons but not required for an institution to post it to the Flickr Commons. The small print in the Flickr webpages makes clear that we should "conduct an independent analysis of applicable law before proceeding with a particular new use", which to me implies that we should ensure that an image is correctly tagged with an explanation of why it is free to use in both the US and the country of original publication. If we did delete, I would advise turning the existing template into an historical template, saying that "this template was in use until (insert date), and should not be used for uploads after this point". That would avoid having to relabel an awful lot of images, while improving the integrity of newer uploads.
- Alternatively, we could alter the wording on the template to make clear that it is for information only, is not a justification in itself to support an upload, and that any image uploaded needs the proper copyright tags added to explain why it is free for use etc. That would provide useful information, but would again still ensure that new uploads were properly tagged. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- First, no tag here applies to both the US and the country of origin -- tags are generally one or the other. This one is more for the country of origin. The tag indicates that an analysis was done for the museum's country at the very least, which in most cases should be the country of origin. So yes, it does generally confirm it is free to use. Second, reasons 3 and 4 of this tag are in fact a straight-up global license tag, which is way more than information only. It is the only rationale by which we can host the image in question. As always, if there are odd situations where the country of origin is different, or there are U.S. copyright issues, then nominate individually for deletion. The same is true when we upload images from the US Library of Congress marked "No known copyright restrictions" -- they did a U.S. analysis, but if they happen to hold a foreign work, we may still have to nominate for deletion. These should be relatively rare. These rare instances do not justify deleting the tag, for me. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect we're not going to agree on this, but I believe that an image should be correctly and clearly tagged for free use when first uploaded; the policies ask that an image is definitely free for use, not that it might be. All that deleting this tag will mean is that an uploader will need to give a US and, if necessary, non-US copyright tag when uploading the image, just like a normal upload. If the image is free for use, etc., that won't be a problem - whereas at the moment we have a lot of images incoherently tagged with the Flickr label. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- You are probably right we aren't going to agree ;-) The tag is a statement that it is definitely free to use. It should be valid for the country the institution is from, which is presumably the country of origin. Any PD tag, really, is not definite -- a country could always retroactively change its laws making something copyright that was previously PD. That is all the "might be" is talking about. You can never be 100% sure. Secondly, a number of these images are here for reasons #3 and #4 on the tag, and not PD by expiration, which does make this a license tag. Deleting the tag would delete all of those. We'd have to invent new tags, and we'd also prevent the easy transfer of these images from Flickr using the upload tools, when the vast vast majority of them are just fine. We "assume good faith" when people upload works even though we are far from sure about those -- if we find issues later, we delete them. This tag is no different, and frankly far more likely to be accurate than regular user-done uploads. I would support improving the situation by being to add more specificity via arguments, but not deletion. That would be a backwards step. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- Change This template is too unclear: are there no restrictions in the country of origin, in the United States or in the country of the Flickr uploader, or has the copyright holder licensed the image under {{Cc-zero}} or some other licence? This should not be treated as a copyright tag but only as a tag which provides information, such as {{Imagewatermark}} or {{Opaque}}, and the appropriate copyright tag(s) should be provided. Also, if you are sued by someone who claims to be the copyright holder, then you can't just state that 'this file is in the public domain for some unknown reason', but you would have to provide the correct reason and evidence thereof. If you do not have enough evidence to win in court, then the file isn't free content, although the file may become free content once the information has been provided. --Stefan4 (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Reasons #1 and #2 mean it is PD in the country of origin. Reasons #3 and #4 mean it is licensed, with basically a PD-author tag. I don't think it's unclear at all. The previous argument was over six years ago; do we have any evidence of any widespread problems with the tag? Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's quite accurate; #1 & #2 mean that it is PD in the country of the institution uploading the image to Flick, not necessarily in the US and the country where it was first published, which is the test for the Commons. Similarly, #4 means that the institution has those rights in their own country, but not necessarily in the US and in the country where it was first published. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of which reason it is, we need to identify that reason so that users know in which countries the material can be used. Also, note the words 'such as' in the template: the reason for the tagging on Flickr may be some reason #5 or #6. For example, #5 might mean that the institution doesn't know and hasn't bother researching properly. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- By and large, an institution will publish works from their own country. It should be rare for images on Flickr Commons to be from other countries. If they are, then by all means nominate them. US rationales would not be included (unless it was a US institution) but that's also true for PD-Old-70 and the like. I would like the ability to be more specific, but this is what Flickr Commons gives us, and it is an indication that either copyright research has been done (generally by folks with a better idea than we do) and it's PD, or it's a straight-up release of rights. Deletion indicates that you don't feel these works are actually free and we should not trust their research, and we should delete all images with the tag unless more research is done (by people with fewer resources than the institution). I would very much like the ability to be able to do some research and add more specific information, but that is to me much different than saying we basically don't trust the institutions providing content to Flickr Commons (which is what turning this into an information-only tag implies). Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Regardless of which reason it is, we need to identify that reason so that users know in which countries the material can be used. Also, note the words 'such as' in the template: the reason for the tagging on Flickr may be some reason #5 or #6. For example, #5 might mean that the institution doesn't know and hasn't bother researching properly. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that's quite accurate; #1 & #2 mean that it is PD in the country of the institution uploading the image to Flick, not necessarily in the US and the country where it was first published, which is the test for the Commons. Similarly, #4 means that the institution has those rights in their own country, but not necessarily in the US and in the country where it was first published. Hchc2009 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- And institutions putting material on the Flick Commons do state they have done copyright research (or own the rights outright). They are probably much better about it than we are. Your supposed reason #5 does not exist. Yes, they can't claim it's OK in all countries, but neither do we. We give the same warning in Commons:General disclaimer. Just because we think it's OK does not mean it's OK everywhere or in every circumstance and you should evaluate it yourself (and our info may be dead wrong). The template is the exact wording from Flickr Commons and represents the language that people should use to evaluate their own usage. If we can provided additional information that would be great but I really can't see a reason to remove Flickr Commons images wholesale. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see it necessarily as a lack of trust, but rather that in uploading an image to Flickr the institution is applying a different set of tests to that required by the Commons, and unfortunately the Flickr wording makes it very hard to determine if the images are genuinely free for use on the Commons or not. I'm not suggesting that we should delete all images with this tag out of hand, rather that we should not be using it to justify further uploads (instead requiring users to add regular copyright tags as per normal uploads), and should alert users that existing images uploaded under the tag already do not necessarily meet the criteria for free use under the Commons - which would seem to me to be an accurate reflection of the description of use given under Flickr's system. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you are preventing further uploads then you are throwing a cloud of suspicion on past uploads, really. The only situation where it is not OK per Commons policies is where an institution uploads works where the country of origin is different than their own. That has been relative rare, and not enough to make the tag a problem. Have there been actual problems, or is this just a theoretical concern? I think such uploads are far, far less likely to be issues than normal Flickr transfers, and I see no need to make uploading them harder. If there are problems with particular files, then just bring those individual files up for DR. That is the same process with Flickrwashed files uploaded via the same process and I would have to guess those are orders of magnitude more likely to be problems than anything from Flickr Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Again, I'm not proposing banning further uploads from Flickr Commons; rather, I believe that future uploads should clearly identify that the images are free for use under the existing Commons rules, and why, using normal tags. If an image is free for use, a decent institution will help an editor identify why (assuming it's not clear in the first place); if its not clearly free for use, or is definitely not free for use under the Commons rules, we shouldn't be uploading it in the first place, rather than relying on subsequent deletion. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:38, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- If you are preventing further uploads then you are throwing a cloud of suspicion on past uploads, really. The only situation where it is not OK per Commons policies is where an institution uploads works where the country of origin is different than their own. That has been relative rare, and not enough to make the tag a problem. Have there been actual problems, or is this just a theoretical concern? I think such uploads are far, far less likely to be issues than normal Flickr transfers, and I see no need to make uploading them harder. If there are problems with particular files, then just bring those individual files up for DR. That is the same process with Flickrwashed files uploaded via the same process and I would have to guess those are orders of magnitude more likely to be problems than anything from Flickr Commons. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see it necessarily as a lack of trust, but rather that in uploading an image to Flickr the institution is applying a different set of tests to that required by the Commons, and unfortunately the Flickr wording makes it very hard to determine if the images are genuinely free for use on the Commons or not. I'm not suggesting that we should delete all images with this tag out of hand, rather that we should not be using it to justify further uploads (instead requiring users to add regular copyright tags as per normal uploads), and should alert users that existing images uploaded under the tag already do not necessarily meet the criteria for free use under the Commons - which would seem to me to be an accurate reflection of the description of use given under Flickr's system. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep has there ever been a take-down notice for an item with this license? if not, then what is the risk? after all we had a takedown of FoP germany, did we then delete all FoP germany files? a "decent institution" will reflect the metadata at hand, they will not "help" the commons with its idiosyncratic licensing purity. even the Hathi Trust does not know the status of orphan works. i cannot trust the consensus at commons to determine what is "definitely not free". "PD not renewed" is a crap shoot. you have an ideological concern, where every other institution does not share your "free" ideology. the world does not owe the commons a salve to its concerns, rather the commons needs to grow up. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 22:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- You've probably had a different experience than mine, Slowking. When I've discussed the origins of particular images with reputable museums etc. in the past, they've typically been quite helpful in explaining where they came from etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- yes, i find that institutions are trying to digitize on the cheap, so the metadata is minimal. the LOC is an outlier given their grant funding. it's not just me, ask anyone at WMDC or WMNYC. and the museums have had a different experience: the smithsonian have had their images summarily deleted with minimal discussion. Sue Gardner's "persnickety" is a euphemism: i prefer more pungent adjectives. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 14:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I know that this isn't the argument you're making (so this isn't me trying to put words in your mouth!), but I'll admit that suggestions that institutions are "trying to digitize on the cheap" with "minimal" metadata would make me all the more cautious about using their conclusions on the Flickr Commons through this tag, Farmbrough, not less, and raise the importance of asking for an uploader to add a normal tag explaining the copyright rationale etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- NB: On that basis, would you be supportive of any change to the wording of the tag, instead of deletion? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- absolutely not. the language mirrors the language at flickr. i find your caution misplaced, and unreasonable. there is not a single instance of a DMCA takedown notice with these licenses. there are instances of DMCA takedowns with "certain" licenses like FoP germany. hard to judge risk with small sample size, but theoretical discussions about how we need better information than exists in professional institutions is a waste of time. they accurately represent the state of the facts; commons needs to get over the facts, that do not fit ideological box checking. raising the burden of uploader's licensing does not increase the quality of licenses. rather it bites newbies, so that uploaders decline. commons becomes wikinews, a walled garden. Slowking4 ♡ Farmbrough's revenge 17:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. On the basis of the above, I'm not convinced there's a firm consensus for a change, although there is a slight numerical bias in favour of deletion:
- Fastily, Salvin, Stefan, myself (Hchc) think there are problems with the tag in terms of the Wikicommons policies, and that it should be removed or reworded considerably;
- Tm and Carl think there are no substantial problems with the tag in terms of the Wikicommons policies, and that it should be kept;
- Farmbrough thinks there are problems with how institutions are digitalising their collections, but believes that the Wikicommons policies should alter, and that the tag should be kept.
NB: If I've missed anyone, or misrepresented an opinion, please shout. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- You forgot opinions expressed in the previous DR, including mine. But most importantly, Carl has much more knowledge of copyright than you, and most other people on Commons for that matter. So a simple count has no real meaning. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
TLDNR. Can anyone of the "vk" voters please explain where is a valid license in this template. If Commons is so sure that the "Flickr Commons collection" is fine for uploading here, why don't we include a PD tag in this template, because otherwise it remains no license, no matter what all of you state? --A.Savin 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The most important issue is that the institution owning the work and importing it to Flickr may have information we don't know, and is best placed to make an assement about its copyright status. I think those claiming that they know more than the institution, and questioning the validity of its public domain, are quite presumptuous and should offer their services there, not here. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I made a notice at VPC to attract more people here. Please keep this open for one month and try to resolve all issues in one place (if possible). Jee 02:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'd echo Jkadavoor's call to try and resolve the issue in a single location.
- @A.Savin, the problem with adding a PD tag is that the uploading to Flickr doesn't necessarily mean an image is in the public domain; reason 4 on the Flickr list means that an institution or a person can still have rights over the image, but that the institution believes that it is legally able to share it on Flickr.
- @Yann, I don't think it is presumptuous of anyone to follow the advice given by both Flickr and the institutions concerned, which is "to conduct an independent analysis of applicable law" before proceeding to use an image. As I've noted above, Flickr and the institutions make no pretence about necessarily complying with the Wikicommons policies on an image being free for use in both the US and what we term the source country, or the Commons' requirements on explicit licensing, copyright tags etc. (indeed, why should they?) which is why I'd argue in favour of requiring an uploader to add conventional copyright tags etc. in addition to this label. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I am fine with reviewing these images, and adding a second license tag. I am also find to delete these if it appears that the file does not meet Commons rules (e.g. files now discussed at COM:UDR), but this is very far from deleting this template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I made a notice at VPC to attract more people here. Please keep this open for one month and try to resolve all issues in one place (if possible). Jee 02:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's absolutely fine to do more research and add more specific information (and other license tags). It would be great if we could specify a more specific tag as an argument, if it is reason #1 or #2 on the tag, as well, though additional license tags work just fine. The institutions involved researched the copyright status, and this is the legal standard required by the Flickr Commons project. The vast majority of the time, that means at the very least it is PD in the country of origin. The question then was, are the exceptions (which do not qualify under Wikimedia Commons rules) happen often enough (say more often than regular CC-licensed Flickr images) to make it worthwhile to ban such uploads unless more analysis was done. Since the tag has been in use for many years, and has basically been accepted, I think we need to be able to show that a higher percentage of problems than normal exist with this tag (and by normal I mean regular uploads, and with Flickr CC uploads). If for example the percentage is lower than the regular CC Flickrwashed uploads, then it's not creating any additional burden really -- we need to monitor uploads always in any event. I am not aware of any such problems. I am obviously wary of the new Flick "no copyright" tag since there is not anywhere near the same guarantee of a respected institution investigating the copyright (and basically stating it is copyright-free in at least part of the world), so I don't think allowing those is a good idea. The wording on the tag is the licensing information given by that institution (or at least Flickr Commons) so we should not change it; that is what people need to see when making their independent evaluations as you say (which by the way is also what Wikimedia Commons tells any re-user of any media here to also do -- nothing here is a guarantee).
- Carl, ref "It would be great if we could specify a more specific tag as an argument..." suggestion, if the institutions explained which justification they though were using (e.g. reason #1, #2, etc.) that would one thing, but because they don't explain which reason they thought applied to the upload to Flickr, or indeed if they expected the copyright on the image to meet the Wikimedia Commons rules, we can't specify that as a condition, which for me is indicative of part of the problem here. I'm not suggesting banning uploads from Flickr Commons, quite the contrary, simply asking that they be tagged as per a normal image by the editor uploading the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course we can specify that as a condition. We look at the circumstances of the work and add the tag if it seems appropriate. That is what we always do when uploading works; these are no different. If an uploader can do that, so can anyone else. The institution believes it is PD in their country, generally the country of origin. It is no different than someone uploading an image with a PD-Old tag, to me. If the image is a modern photograph (the Smithsonian has some of those) than it is obviously reason #3 or #4 (either one is essentially PD-author). The odds that a Flickr Commons photograph is also OK for Wikimedia Commons is extremely high. It is not a practical problem to me, unless you can show a good number of actual issues (I have seen none mentioned in this DR). Someone uploading with just PD-Old, or a regular Flickr tag, is probably an issue a higher percentage of the time. This is a collaborative project; if someone wants to do additional research and figure out an additional or more specific tag, then great. That would be recommended. I do not think it's necessary to require the uploader to do that in the Flickr Commons case. As with any other PD-Old work, if we discover that it's not actually PD in the country of origin (or the US), then we would file a DR on the individual images. People guess PD-Old all the time without having author information (let alone publication information); are you OK with such uploads? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- On the PD-Old question, I'd actually be in favour of asking uploaders using a "death + X years justification" to give the date of death of the artist at the same time, as it would reduce the number of copyright violations on the Commons and avoid later frustrations for the uploader and the wider community. #4 is not actually a PD clause though; it can simply mean that the copyright holder is believed to have authorised the institution to upload it in this way, which doesn't necessarily mean that they've released their work into the Public Domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, #4 is a PD clause. They all are. "No known copyright restrictions" is a synonym for what we call "public domain", as it is a more accurate description (the US Library of Congress uses that phrase). As for PD-Old etc., yes we could keep raising and raising the quality of information people need to upload, and make it such a pain that people won't bother other than a select few. We will have high quality information but fewer files. Research can always be done by others… that is the point of a collaborative project to me, that the work gets spread out. We should be making things, as much as possible, easy to spread the workload. The uploaders are often the only people with the critical knowledge to deal with the licensing but that is not the case here. It's always a balance to try to prevent copyvios versus making the site impossible to use or contribute to. Things like "assume good faith" is part of that -- we could also make users file an email with OTRS for every single upload they want to do, to make sure they understand the licensing and make fewer mistakes. That would also reduce the number of copyvios, but at the cost of making the site untenable to use for many people. These files on the other hand are overwhelmingly likely (much more than "assume good faith" or even random PD-Old uploads) to be OK on Commons, and it makes zero sense to me to target these to make harder to upload. They are not burdening the existing system any more than those other assumptions are (we always have to police things). This tag has been in use for seven or eight years without apparent actual issue. Unless there is a higher percentage of problems with the usage of this tag than with "assume good faith" uploads, there is no good reason to do away with it. By all means add more specific information, though. That would always be appreciated. But requiring that info prior to upload is basically asking other people to do the work because we don't care to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation of the Flickr Commons, Clind - it simply isn't the same as a declaration that material is genuinely in the Public Domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- That may be where we disagree. From the rights page: Under "The Commons," cultural institutions that have reasonably concluded that a photograph is free of copyright restrictions are invited to share such photograph under their new usage guideline called "no known copyright restrictions." […] BY ASSERTING "NO KNOWN COPYRIGHT RESTRICTIONS," PARTICIPATING INSTITUTIONS ARE SHARING THE BENEFIT OF THEIR RESEARCH WITHOUT PROVIDING AN EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED WARRANTY TO OTHERS WHO WOULD LIKE TO USE OR REPRODUCE THE PHOTOGRAPH. IF YOU MAKE USE OF A PHOTO FROM THE COMMONS, YOU ARE REMINDED TO CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ANALYSIS OF APPLICABLE LAW BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH A PARTICULAR NEW USE. The institution has done research on the copyright, and concluded no copyright restrictions apply. That is equivalent to what we call "public domain" (a term which is often used to indicate that it is also free of other substantial rights, which Wikimedia Commons does not). The state what we call "public domain" means that there is no copyright-based way to bring a lawsuit, basically. It's always possible that a mistake was made, or that laws in another country could complicate the issue there, or that laws could be changed (or new precedents set). Therefore, they will not guarantee their research. That is exactly the same position as Wikimedia Commons -- we don't guarantee our "public domain" declaration either, just that we think it's OK. The Library of Congress was one of the initial Flickr Commons contributors; they always use the term "No known copyright restrictions" on the images they have concluded are PD (and never the term "public domain") and they convinced the Flickr Commons project to use the same wording. What do you think the difference is? Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation of the Flickr Commons, Clind - it simply isn't the same as a declaration that material is genuinely in the Public Domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, #4 is a PD clause. They all are. "No known copyright restrictions" is a synonym for what we call "public domain", as it is a more accurate description (the US Library of Congress uses that phrase). As for PD-Old etc., yes we could keep raising and raising the quality of information people need to upload, and make it such a pain that people won't bother other than a select few. We will have high quality information but fewer files. Research can always be done by others… that is the point of a collaborative project to me, that the work gets spread out. We should be making things, as much as possible, easy to spread the workload. The uploaders are often the only people with the critical knowledge to deal with the licensing but that is not the case here. It's always a balance to try to prevent copyvios versus making the site impossible to use or contribute to. Things like "assume good faith" is part of that -- we could also make users file an email with OTRS for every single upload they want to do, to make sure they understand the licensing and make fewer mistakes. That would also reduce the number of copyvios, but at the cost of making the site untenable to use for many people. These files on the other hand are overwhelmingly likely (much more than "assume good faith" or even random PD-Old uploads) to be OK on Commons, and it makes zero sense to me to target these to make harder to upload. They are not burdening the existing system any more than those other assumptions are (we always have to police things). This tag has been in use for seven or eight years without apparent actual issue. Unless there is a higher percentage of problems with the usage of this tag than with "assume good faith" uploads, there is no good reason to do away with it. By all means add more specific information, though. That would always be appreciated. But requiring that info prior to upload is basically asking other people to do the work because we don't care to. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- On the PD-Old question, I'd actually be in favour of asking uploaders using a "death + X years justification" to give the date of death of the artist at the same time, as it would reduce the number of copyright violations on the Commons and avoid later frustrations for the uploader and the wider community. #4 is not actually a PD clause though; it can simply mean that the copyright holder is believed to have authorised the institution to upload it in this way, which doesn't necessarily mean that they've released their work into the Public Domain. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Of course we can specify that as a condition. We look at the circumstances of the work and add the tag if it seems appropriate. That is what we always do when uploading works; these are no different. If an uploader can do that, so can anyone else. The institution believes it is PD in their country, generally the country of origin. It is no different than someone uploading an image with a PD-Old tag, to me. If the image is a modern photograph (the Smithsonian has some of those) than it is obviously reason #3 or #4 (either one is essentially PD-author). The odds that a Flickr Commons photograph is also OK for Wikimedia Commons is extremely high. It is not a practical problem to me, unless you can show a good number of actual issues (I have seen none mentioned in this DR). Someone uploading with just PD-Old, or a regular Flickr tag, is probably an issue a higher percentage of the time. This is a collaborative project; if someone wants to do additional research and figure out an additional or more specific tag, then great. That would be recommended. I do not think it's necessary to require the uploader to do that in the Flickr Commons case. As with any other PD-Old work, if we discover that it's not actually PD in the country of origin (or the US), then we would file a DR on the individual images. People guess PD-Old all the time without having author information (let alone publication information); are you OK with such uploads? Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, ref "It would be great if we could specify a more specific tag as an argument..." suggestion, if the institutions explained which justification they though were using (e.g. reason #1, #2, etc.) that would one thing, but because they don't explain which reason they thought applied to the upload to Flickr, or indeed if they expected the copyright on the image to meet the Wikimedia Commons rules, we can't specify that as a condition, which for me is indicative of part of the problem here. I'm not suggesting banning uploads from Flickr Commons, quite the contrary, simply asking that they be tagged as per a normal image by the editor uploading the image. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's absolutely fine to do more research and add more specific information (and other license tags). It would be great if we could specify a more specific tag as an argument, if it is reason #1 or #2 on the tag, as well, though additional license tags work just fine. The institutions involved researched the copyright status, and this is the legal standard required by the Flickr Commons project. The vast majority of the time, that means at the very least it is PD in the country of origin. The question then was, are the exceptions (which do not qualify under Wikimedia Commons rules) happen often enough (say more often than regular CC-licensed Flickr images) to make it worthwhile to ban such uploads unless more analysis was done. Since the tag has been in use for many years, and has basically been accepted, I think we need to be able to show that a higher percentage of problems than normal exist with this tag (and by normal I mean regular uploads, and with Flickr CC uploads). If for example the percentage is lower than the regular CC Flickrwashed uploads, then it's not creating any additional burden really -- we need to monitor uploads always in any event. I am not aware of any such problems. I am obviously wary of the new Flick "no copyright" tag since there is not anywhere near the same guarantee of a respected institution investigating the copyright (and basically stating it is copyright-free in at least part of the world), so I don't think allowing those is a good idea. The wording on the tag is the licensing information given by that institution (or at least Flickr Commons) so we should not change it; that is what people need to see when making their independent evaluations as you say (which by the way is also what Wikimedia Commons tells any re-user of any media here to also do -- nothing here is a guarantee).
- Keep for this license. I think this PD-evaluation of copyright of an institution is very valuable information we should provide with a photograph. Institutions are very aware of, and restrictive with copyright issues. Off course those institutions use always a clausule that there are 'no known' rights, as every work of art and every document has always an uncertainty whether the author and the date is what it is. But that is true for all images here in commons: we will never know for 100% if for example a Rembrandt is a real Rembrandt and when it was made. 'no known rights' is a philosophical debate about not knowing the unknown.
- Probably we should check on an institutional level check if they use the license in a compatible way, see the additional licenses information each institution provides here: https://www.flickr.com/commons/usage/ I read some restrictions for example about attribution. --Hannolans (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, an obscure legal dunno template is the last thing needed here. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not obscure and it's certainly not "dunno". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with Carl in that I don't think it's obscure, but I'd argue its unclear. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- It's not obscure and it's certainly not "dunno". Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Damn, this is a blast from the past. Back in 2009 I wrote {{PD}} all over again. This template is bad. It doesn't state why an image is public domain (just like {{PD}}). This template should be converted into a notice and real license templates should be added. and am afraid this is still the case, just more images to clean up. Probably 95% of images tagged with this template are in the public domain so whatever decision is reached: Please give time, just like with {{PD}}, to correct affected images. I would hate to see them deleted, Multichill (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
- Changing it to a source tag was a bad idea then and it would be worse now. I would guess well over 99% of the images are fine, so anything which could conceivably result in automated deletion is the wrong way to go. We need *some* tag to allow automated Flickr uploads; this fits the bill. And reasons #3 and #4 are a legitimate standalone tag. It would be good to be more specific of course. It just needs to allow a more specific tag to be specified as an argument, that's all (and anyone can do that now, albeit with a separate tag). Allowing a more specific tag as an argument would allow for a maintenance category, if people want to go that route. I can understand the gut reaction to the wording of the tag, but as a practical matter, these images have been checked by copyright-aware folks who are better at it than we are, and are more likely than just about any other image source to be OK for Wikimedia Commons, so it makes no sense to me to impede their being uploaded here. I'm all for a mechanism to improve the documentation, though. Just not by deprecating this tag, or anything else which would lead to automated deletions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Interestingly, Flickr have announced at the end of March on their blog here that "many members of our community want to be able to upload images that are no longer protected by copyright and correctly tag them as being in the Public Domain, or they want to release their copyright entirely under CC0", and are now offering the CC0 and CC Public Domain Mark 1.0 licenses as alternatives to the Flickr Commons tag. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah... While CC0 is fine I hope the bots don't allow the new pd tag there. Those likely do not come from a large institution with copyright savvy employees. The odds of those being accurate are probably similar to archive.org uploads which have been pretty poor. Carl Lindberg (talk) 20:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- 'Note: Related discussion on the above is talking place at Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images. Ultra7 (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Whether or not this is a license tag seems entirely redundant to the issue of whether or not it should exist here as a template. Images from this particular section of Flickr should obviously be tagged with something which explains the background. I'm undecided on whether or not this should be automatically accepted as a license tag, or whether images should be reviewed manually to find one that fits (PD-x), but I certainly do not agree that images tagged with this template are subject to such doubt that they should be automatically deemed to violate the COM:PCP - I don't think there can be any significant doubt that these particular images would cause us any "significant doubt" about whether or not they are likely to be non-free - they're in that section precisely because they have undergone a thorough review by experts who have put their reputation on the line to declare no known restrictions (even if they ultimately disclaim any responsibility for any oversight - this is normal, everyone does it, even Commons). Obviously that should not be a barrier to anyone nominating any particular image with this tag for deletion should they uncover any evidence it is copyrighted, but obviously there's not much point deleting it here if they don't also present that evidence to whichever institution uploaded it to Flickr. I'd even go so far as to say no image with this tag should be deleted unless they're deleted at Flickr. Ultra7 (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for two reasons: (1) there's a licence granted to us via FlickR; (2) the conditions of this licence are explicited according to the conditions of its "The Commons" section; the attributions are found in FlicR's "The Commons" (However it's true that uploaders to Wikimedia Commons from FlickR's The Commons SHOULD not just insert this licence template, but ALSO the attributions listed in FlicR's The commons.
- The text of this template however is not very clear ; one could think there's no copyright restriction, but this is wrong (there's effectively a copyright with restrictions, just like they exist with open licences too, including CC-BY-SA)
- But for Wikimedia Commons, these copyright restrictions are not a problem as long as we are granted a right of redistribution and reuse (and this is the case, given the conditions listed by FlickR's The Commons), and we respect the attribution of authors (the name of the Wikimedian uploading the image from FlickR does not matter at all, except for the content he creates with textual descriptions and translations in the File description page). If the FlickR image specifies another licence (such as CC-BY-SA) than the default one for FlickR's The Commons, that licence should be transfered and we don't need this FlickR template, and our uploader must look if this licence is approved in Wikimedia Commmons (but if it is not, there's large chance that it is also not approved in FlickR's The Commons, and in case this licence is contested, FlickR must be contacted to state about the licence status; here we'll mark the file as being subject to FlickR's response, and if FlickR deletes the image, we'll delete it too here, so we should have a category tracking images whose licence on FlickR has been contested, pending response from FlickR, which may either delete the image, or authoritatively place it in another non-free category, and in both cases we'll delete the iamge here!).
- verdy_p (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per Carl L. and others. We could start a discussion about a review process to add more information and a more precise public domain rationale than the one already provided. Please note that there is already a RFC about the new Flickr PD licenses (Commons:Requests for comment/Flickr and PD images). We should keep in mind that the rationale provided comes from official institutions with legal expertise. Yann (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Even though this is a relatively high quality photo, I have doubts about copyright and personality rights. -Pete F (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
This is the deletion nomination page for this photo.
- Delete. Unusable blurry photo, superseded by many better ones at Category:Toyota Agya. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional logo, no educational value, out of scope
- File:KVT Logo.jpg
- File:KVT-Brand Logo.PNG
- File:KWVR (AM) logo.png
- File:KZ Sport 1.jpg
- File:La PSU.svg
- File:Labaid Specialized Hospital.png
- File:Label Jurado.JPG
- File:Latest Infos logo.PNG
- File:LavidSoftwareGmbHLogo.jpg
- File:LBT logo 160x80.gif
- File:LDE logo 160x80.gif
- File:Le-petit-berrichon.jpg
- File:Le-petit-solognot.jpg
- File:Legacy Creative Works Logo.jpg
- File:LeoExp.jpg
- File:LeoExp.png
- File:Les itinéraires - logo.jpg
- File:Liamkrullenbol Snapt er niks van.jpg
- File:Libertas Institute logo.jpg
- File:Liehs.jpg
- File:Lighting Design Austria e.U..JPG
- File:LinuxFest Stavropol 2013.png
- File:Literary Juice title logo.jpeg
- File:Logo de gaztea.gif
- File:Lord Hector Diono Def Jam Digital Music Corporate Seal No 3.jpg
- File:Los ensayos.png
- File:Los nimai.jpg
- File:Los80.jpg
- File:LosMesoneros.jpg
- File:Loubistar Logo v2.png
- File:Loubistar.png
- File:Loud Album.jpg
- File:Loveinbavaria.JPG
- File:Lr1.jpg
- File:Lunacloud - Cloud Server and Cloud Storage.png
- File:Lunacloud.png
- File:Luxsaccus-logo.gif
- File:Luxsaccus-logo.jpg
- File:MADNESS logo.png
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Rodrigolopes (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep for File:La_PSU.svg, otherwise w:meh, I looked at all GIFs and a few others. File:LavidSoftwareGmbHLogo.jpg isn't ugly, it might be even seriously non-free. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. Collection of uneducational and promotional logos. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:37, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: all out of project scope and useless George Chernilevsky talk 17:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Remplazado por File:Patricio Walker Presidente del Senado (2015).jpg Otto Baesler (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: Not a reason to delete — just like we don’t delete this guy’s pictures at a younger age because we have also pictures of him at an older age. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I uploaded this picture by mistake. Please delete the file. FirstRound (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Courtesy deletion soon after upload, okay, but the file is in use… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Yann (talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Possible copy-vio. Sam situation as here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Papa Giovanni XXIII.jpg ptjackyll (leave a message) 09:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.microcredgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/RA_MicroCred_Holding_2011_FR.pdf pages 4&5 Lacrymocéphale (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Not in use. Part of self-adv. activities 91.210.4.1 13:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: http://www.larepublica.pe/10-02-2015/david-bisbal-cuenta-detalles-de-su-concierto-en-lima Yann (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Please remove this category because Chickens of Turkey, an identical category has already been created, and CfD was started for clarifyfing the matter.
- Keep. I redirected the category. Avoids future recreation... --P 1 9 9 ✉ 02:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/04/Category:Chickens in Turkey. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Photo copiée/collée à partir de ce site https://twitter.com/fdecoster --Lomita (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This redirection should be deleted. Redirection is misleading, leads to a picture of another player. Wieralee (talk) 13:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Potentially false licence. Source - The play "A Moon for the Misbegotten" (directed by Tovstonogov, 1967) in the role of Jim Tyrone Kopelyan. http://archive.diary.ru/~m-llekolombina/?comments&postid=27278447
Deleted: by Ymblanter. Yann (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I want the deletion of this file, because the districts of Balıkesir province changed with a new law in 2012/2013. And I've just realized this file while I was trying to upload my map of Balıkesir province (with latest districts). Berkaysnklf (talk) 23:05, April 1, 2015 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE. Also remember to notify the uploaders and tag the file when nominating files for deletion. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Bad lightening, over exposed, unclear subject Natuur12 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 15:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
The image is here: http://firststringresearch.com/scientific-advisory-board/ The uploader must prove that he or she took the picture, or ask for permission to have it on Commons using COM:CONSENT. Similar problem with other pictures uploaded by this user. Dontreader (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Please click on the subject's name to see the picture. It's a cropped version but still causes suspicions, in my opinion. Dontreader (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Our version is older and bigger. Yann (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
This image is a representation of a hoax, with no actual "biofrequency" component and no "chip", and the article that used it (see discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofrequency Chip) has been deleted. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope 99of9 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
This is an image of a factitious entity - there is no "biofrequency" nor "chip" - it is a pseudoscientific hoax placed here for promotional commercial purposes.FeatherPluma (talk) 02:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope and extremely poor image quality 99of9 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Thibaut120094 (talk) 00:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Je ne sais pas comment créer ou participer à la discussion à propos de la demande de suppression de la photo.
- Celle-ci, n'est pas un "derivative work" COM:DW , c'est une photo d'une personne qui elle porte un tatouage, ce tatouage en tant que tel est issue d'une interprétation, mais pas la photo, ce n'est pas une photo de studio, ou une photo crée dans le but d'un usage commercial ou artistique. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khalnad (talk • contribs) 07:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Bob et Bobette sont protégés par le droit d'auteur, le tatouage est une œuvre dérivée de ces personnages. Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Le tatouage est une œuvre dérivé, mais pas la photo du tatouage, si je vais sur la page de l'iphone, il y'a une photo de l'iphone et d'autres telephones, ca veut pas dire que cette photo est une œuvre dérivé du téléphone.
Deleted: Tattoo of cartoon characters is a Derivative Work. Please read COM:L for additional enlightenment. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
no offense please, but missing EXIF and slightly 'moiree', that's why it's imho recommended to discuss about own work, Roland zh (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: user's other uploads were of large size and had camera meta data, this one did not - instead it was a social media size and as nominator pointed out moiree'd as if copied too many times. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No evidence that it´s Own work.
- File:РипЫГУраж.JPG
- File:Рпигушерг.JPG
- File:Тплоыт.JPG
- File:ТмЫДпоУЦоп.JPG
- File:ТаиУРаЖЦРУ.JPG
- File:Ыьтпыаыу.JPG
- File:Твапотвл.JPG
- File:Вопрыпы.ти.JPG
- File:Чситьрбоюлдорнпамс.JPG
Rodrigolopes (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Senate of Chile website is different than National Congress Library. Senate web is not licensed under Creative Commons. Warko (talk) 02:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Senate web and Chamber web's multimedia is under the license of the National Congress Library. Otto Baesler (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- No. Those are independent websites. --Warko (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Look this {{CC-Senado de Chile}}. Otto Baesler (talk) 01:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- A template that you created, without verification of the licences that comes from Senate website? Sorry. --Sfs90 (talk) 02:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Senate of Chile website is different than National Congress Library. Senate web is not licensed under Creative Commons. Warko (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Senate web and Chamber web's multimedia is under the license of the National Congress Library. Otto Baesler (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- No. Those are independent websites. --Warko (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Look this {{CC-Senado de Chile}}. Otto Baesler (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- A template that you created, without verification of the licences that comes from Senate website? Sorry. --Sfs90 (talk) 02:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image appears on khabarlahariya.org, a website with content licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license; however, the image is not separately licensed or credited, and further research found it again, three years earlier, on a Reuters website, where it is credited to "Reuters/Bazuki Muhammad". This appears to be a copyvio. Please also note this discussion at the copyright village pump and this discussion on my userpage concerning this file and its copyright status. Michael Barera (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Walter is Daguerreian art (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable
- File:“The Modern Daguerreotypist.pdf
- File:The adventures of The Professor Simon Alexander Wooley.pdf
- File:Teaching the Daguerreotype during Photography's Glory Years.pdf
Motopark (talk) 04:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 04:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
According to this Village pump discussion, the portrait image was extracted from an image of a banknote that was deleted due to copyright issues. Gazebo (talk) 04:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not the uploader, I just tweaked the transparency.--Carnby (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
'Unknown' does not mean 'anonymous'. If this picture was published without asserting authorship, we could assert it's anonymous and therefore apply the 80 years term (valid in Spain). Otherwise, we should apply COM:PRP Discasto talk 06:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- The picture is from 1928. And yes, tt has never been asserted any autorship. Check here, a complete website that does assert authorship of photos when available.--Coentor (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Anonymous authorship must be asserted (or not) at original publication, not now. --Discasto talk 08:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Let's make a deal: If I e-mail the Institut d'Estudis Fallers (Falles Studies Institute) and they are unable to find the author of this or any alternative picture, can We consider them to be published anonymously?--Coentor (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- Anonymous authorship must be asserted (or not) at original publication, not now. --Discasto talk 08:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. There has been three weeks for additional comments and there have been none. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A permission from Anthony Pepitone is needed. Yann (talk) 07:37, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's just the user's full name. See "author=user Dxede5x aka Anthony Pepitone - Photographer". --99of9 (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per Yann. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [6]. Yann (talk) 08:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A permission from Anthony Pepitone is needed. Yann (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I think it's just the user's full name. See "author=user Dxede5x aka Anthony Pepitone - Photographer". --99of9 (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per Yann. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: as per [7]. Yann (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Rockabilly
[edit]Contain more than text. Copyright notice? Renewal?
- File:BlueSuedeShoes CarlPerkins.jpg
- File:BlueSuedeShoes.jpg
- File:Dixiefried.jpg
- File:Jesse blason.jpg
Yann (talk) 07:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal logo, out of scope. Yann (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung beim Hintergrundbild. Es ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass der Fotograf schon 80 Jahre tot ist. Zulu55 (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- No copyright problems. The picture in the background is barely visible. --Hedwig Klawuttke (talk) 02:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM. For the related JPG+PNG deletion requests it's unclear how the author decided that the photographer is dead for more than 70 years. 1944+70 (died in the war) would work, but 2014 is after 1996 for URAA. However, 80 as stated above is no magic number I've heard of here. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: background is blurry and de minimus - although it adds nothing to the overall chart which could be redone without it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung beim Hintergrundbild. Es ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass der Fotograf schon 80 Jahre tot ist. Zulu55 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: This background image was more clearly visible than the one in the foregoing DN. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Urheberrechtsverletzung beim Hintergrundbild. Es ist nicht davon auszugehen, dass der Fotograf schon 80 Jahre tot ist. Zulu55 (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: This background image was more clearly visible than the one in the foregoing DN. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
out of scope Ciaurlec (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
За какие рамки выходит данная карта? Эта карта нужна для статьи Feel Russia на вики, которую я делаю. Взята с официального сайта скриншотом.
Deleted: No indication of user's own work, looks like part of a festival poster. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
This user thought it very clever to use Wikimedia Commons space for the reason of stocking logos and “emblems” of his fictional country that are of no forseeable use. I ask for their deletion.
- File:ISC.jpg
- File:Chart of flight price airport.jpg
- File:Chevaze Francesco signatre.jpg
- File:NIB logo.jpg
- File:Gulnera Coast Guard Jack and Ensign.jpg
- File:Emblem of Gulnera- small.jpg
- File:Gulnera registration plates-diplomatic.jpg
- File:Gulnera registration plates-military.jpg
- File:Gulnera registration plates-civilian.jpg
- File:Gulnera Army Flag.jpg
- File:Velanzia merchant ensign.jpg
- File:Velanzian flag.jpg
- File:Gulnera Navy Jack and Ensign.jpg
- File:Gulnera merchant ensign.jpg
- File:Gulnera emblem.jpg
- File:Gulnera AF roundel.jpg
- File:Gulnera AF ensign.jpg
- File:Flag of gulnera.jpg
The Theosophist (talk) 10:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files seem to come from some music album. In that case, they need permission from whoever holds the copyrigth to the album. See COM:OTRS.
- File:09 I Want To Stay.ogg
- File:08 All I Need.ogg
- File:07 Everything To Me.ogg
- File:05 New Attitudes.ogg
- File:06 Where Has Freedom Gone.ogg
- File:04 She Was Lovin' Me.ogg
- File:03 Let Me Go.ogg
- File:01 Vibrationist.ogg
- File:02 Room 2 Breathe.ogg
Stefan4 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 22:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos of some kind. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Ecena de la película.jpg
- File:La invasión de los muertos.jpg
- File:El-increible-profesor-zovek-1972.jpg
- File:El increíble perofesor Zovek.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status and unlikely own work/self-{{Cc-by-sa-3.0}}. Undated historical photos of Mexican city Teziutlán uploaded in a row on 07.04.2015 and sourced with http://www.portaloficial.net/teziutlan/propuesta1/images/antiguo/ (authored with "Apache Server" (web server software) = fail) which redirects the main url http://www.portaloficial.net to the Internet services company http://www.publiservicios.mx/ (Copyright © Publiservicios 2010. Todos los Derechos Reservados.). Historical photos may be in public domain but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Antigüa avenida Victoria, ahora avenida Hidalgo , Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Parque antigüo, palacio antigüo municipal y Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Palacio antigüo municipal, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, Teziutlán 2.jpg
- File:Barrio del Carmen calle Nigromante con Avenida Zaragoza, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Portales del palacio municipal y Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista parcial, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Antigüa Plaza de toros, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Iglesia del Carmen, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Kiosko antigüo, palacio antigüo, y patio antigüo de Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Parque antigüo y palacio municipal, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Barrio de San Rafael, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista general de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Estadio municipal de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Hospital Regional de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Mercado Victoria de Teziutlan y su antigüo parque.jpg
- File:Antigüo parque histórico de Teziutlán y patio de Catedral.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Favor de no Borrar éstas Imágenes son históricas y las quiero utilizar para mi proyecto.
- File:Antigüa avenida Victoria, ahora avenida Hidalgo , Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Parque antigüo, palacio antigüo municipal y Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Palacio antigüo municipal, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, Teziutlán 2.jpg
- File:Barrio del Carmen calle Nigromante con Avenida Zaragoza, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Portales del palacio municipal y Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista parcial, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Antigüa Plaza de toros, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Iglesia del Carmen, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Kiosko antigüo, palacio antigüo, y patio antigüo de Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Parque antigüo y palacio municipal, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Barrio de San Rafael, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista general de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Estadio municipal de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Hospital Regional de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Mercado Victoria de Teziutlan y su antigüo parque.jpg
- File:Antigüo parque histórico de Teziutlán y patio de Catedral.jpg
Por favor no las Borren. CDGJ965commons (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- These look quite old, and are probably in the public domain, but we need evidence of who took them and when. - Jmabel ! talk 05:09, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- File:Antigüa avenida Victoria, ahora avenida Hidalgo , Teziutlán.jpg Judging by the reference to Vicente Lombardo Toledano as a "candidate", this probably dates from the 1920s or 1930s. Given that it looks like an anonymous photo on a postcard, that should exceed the 50 years copyright for such a work in Mexico. - Jmabel ! talk 05:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- I got an archive from the source portaloficial.net which looks like a mirror of en:Teziutlán's official site http://www.teziutlan.gob.mx/ (also down/404, archive). Considering also part of the source url "teziutlan/propuesta1" ("proposal") it might be that the photos were originally hosted at official site and only mirrored by portaloficial.net to (now guessing) "propose" a new website layout (or whatever). portaloficial.net itself was (checking archives like this ("Copyright 2010 rhema.com.mx - All rights reserved") or this) some kind of a news portal for that Mexican region. In other words: there might be also a chance that these photos were taken by government (100 years publication)... Gunnex (talk) 07:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Les pido por favor que NO BORREN las imágenes, son fotos antiguas e históricas, No las BORREN por favor.
- _________
- Deleted It is up to the uploader to provide source information sufficient to match the goals of this project, see COM:L for more information and COM:EVIDENCE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CDGJ965commons (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:CDGJ965commons (serial copyright violator/file cropper/watermark remover/Flickr-Panoramio-etc. grabber etc.). Historical photos (source country: Mexico / 100 pma) may be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided. Ignoring photos taken with a Nextel V.45 (most likely own works). Per previous mass DR's above some of the deleted files were reuploaded by user.
- File:El crimen de francisco Paco Stanley.jpg
- File:Antiguo panteón de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Raúl Galacia.jpg
- File:Catedral de Teziutlán (vista hacia arriba).jpg --> grabbed from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/11382788 (2008, © by xiamarte)
- File:Catedral de Teziutlán y sus nubes.jpg --> grabbed from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14638052 (2008, © by cfloresm00 )
- File:Vista panorámica del circuito angelópolis (autopista Teziutlán-Puebla).jpg
- File:Iglesia del barrio de San Rafael.jpg --> grabbed from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/14208951 (2008, © by xiamarte)
- File:Puente y carretera nueva de San Juan Acateno.jpg
- File:Fuente de los Frailes.jpg
- File:Iglesia de Amozoc.jpg
- File:Obispado de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista lateral del Templo expiatorio.jpg
- File:Antigua iglesia destruida 02.jpg --> grabbed from http://www.panoramio.com/photo/71656015 (2012, © by Fabio Morandín)
- File:Vista del Templo expiatorio guadalupano.jpg
- File:Estación del tren 02.jpg
- File:Atexcaco aire libre.jpg
- File:Templo Expiatorio Guadalupano.jpg
- File:Plaza de toros el pinal.jpg
- File:Hermanos Víctor.jpg
- File:José Víctor.jpg
- File:El increíble profesor Zovek presentandose.jpg --> film screenshot/still, grabbed from (example) http://losescapistas.mex.tl/353728_Recordando-a---.html
- File:Zovek y su familia.jpg
- File:El increíble profesor Zovek haciendo un acto de escapismo.jpg
- File:La invasión de los muertos.jpg
- File:El increíble profesor Zovek atrapado.jpg
- File:El increíble profesor Zovek (Película).jpg --> film cover, grabbed from Internet
- File:Vista hacia el cerro de Mexcalcuautla.jpg
- File:Vista del cerro de Mexcalcuautla.jpg
- File:Cerro de Atoluca.jpg
- File:Vista panorámica de San Sebastían.jpg --> grabbed from https://www.flickr.com/photos/franciscorec/3750045507 (2009, © by "franciscorec")
- File:San Diego (Puebla).jpg
- File:San Juan Acateno.jpg
- File:Mexcalcualtla.jpg
- File:Cerro de Mexcalcuautla.jpg
- File:Desfilele de las reinas de la feria de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Cantro de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Catedral, Avenida Hidalgo y Parque.jpg
- File:Avenida Cuautemoc.jpg
- File:Santuario de Catedral.jpg
- File:Avenida hidalgo.jpg
- File:Avenida hidalgo de lo alto.jpg
- File:Avenida hidalgo y calle 16 de Septiembre.jpg
- File:Soldados de la Revulución en la estación del tren.jpg
- File:Vista panorámica hacia Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Teatro Victoria (parte interior).jpg
- File:Avenida Allende.jpg
- File:Revolución en Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Estación del tren de teziutlán 2.jpg
- File:Hospital Regional de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Estación del tren de teziutlán.jpg
- File:Estadio municipal de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:El día del trabajo (1926).jpg
- File:Portales del palacio municipal y Catedral, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:El día de la Primera Misa (1929).jpg
- File:Construcción del C.E.P.M.A.C.jpg
- File:Esquina de avenida Hidalgo y calle Allende.jpg
- File:Virgen del Carmen (foto antigua).jpg
- File:Iglesia del Carmen, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Santa Iglesia del Carmen (por dentro).jpg
- File:Antigua avenida Victoria, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Tranvía en Av. Hidalgo.jpg
- File:Escuela Miguel Hidalgo.jpg
- File:Calle Allende.jpg
- File:Antiguo Kiosko, Palacio patio de Catedral deTeziutlán.jpg
- File:Antiguo mercado Victori con su antiguo parque.jpg
- File:Antiguuo Zócalo, Palacio, municipal y Catedral deTeziutlán.jpg
- File:E.P.F.F.A. y Carretera a Puebla.jpg
- File:Antiguo Zócalo, palacio y mercado de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:E.S.F.A.A.jpg
- File:Vista parcial, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Vista general de Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Barrio del Carmen (vista de la santa iglesia del Carmen).jpg
- File:Antigua parque.jpg
- File:Santa iglesia del Carmen (vista izquierda).jpg
- File:Santa iglesia del Carmen (vista diagonal).jpg
- File:Barrio del Carmen calle Nigromante con Avenida Zaragoza, Teziutlán.JPG
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, leteral Izquierdo, Teziutlán.JPG
- File:Barrio de San Rafael, Teziutlán.JPG
- File:Avenida juárez.JPG
- File:Avenida juárez 3.jpg
- File:Avenida juárez 2.JPG
- File:Antigüo parque histórico de Teziutlán y patio de Catedral.JPG
- File:Antiguo campanario de Catedral.jpg
- File:Avenida hidalgo y Calle Lerdo.jpg
- File:Barrio de San Rafael.jpg
- File:Barrio de francia.JPG
- File:Barrio de aire libre.jpg
- File:Catedral de Teziutlán, Puebla.jpg
- File:Antigua Plaza de toros.jpg
- File:Antiguo teatro Victoria.jpg
- File:Antigua Plaza de toros en construcción.jpg
- File:Antigua parque porfiriano y Catedral.jpg
- File:Bulevard calle Allende, Teziutlán.jpg
- File:Catedral de teziutlán.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}
Gunnex (talk) 08:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
No freedom ofm panorama in US. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
NSW State Gov't (Australia) photograph for traffic offense, not published under CC. OSX II (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The photographs are taken by a camera mounted either on the traffic lights or other high place. They are activated automatically. There is no sweat of brow by a human and there is nothing copyrightable in their creation. Maldiveanavia (talk) 18:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- So I take it that Google Street View images are agreeable with Wiki Commons licensing by the same argument? OSX II (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not really OSX II. With Google Street View there is plenty of "sweat of brow", such as the google employee driving the car around. In the instance of this photo the only human intervention in its creation is the person who has mounted the camera. It's akin to CCTV I guess one could say. Paraguayavia (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
- So I take it that Google Street View images are agreeable with Wiki Commons licensing by the same argument? OSX II (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused image out of COM:SCOPE, there are plenty of blurry pictures of the boot of a car already on Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright status of this file? Hilarmont (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- renamed to File:PideTaxi logo recreado.svg. --JuTa 18:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Thibaut120094 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 14:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Hello, this file is a pressrelease and a concert pamphlet written by the artist himself (Arik Strauss) therefore I wrote it as my file with his permission. I do hope this should be OK by you. Thank you.ציפור שיר (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Press release is out of COM:SCOPE, also "own work" claim false. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Haggadah di Pesach Traslitterata.pdf
- File:Tu Bishvat.pdf
- File:Benedizioni e canti per Chanukkah.pdf
- File:Haggadah di Pesach.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- [IT] Io penso che per il contenuto specifico di questi files, Commons sia l'unico posto adatto ad ospitarli. Se cosi' non fosse, vorrei che EugeneZelenko ne esplicitasse il motivo.
- [ES] Creo que Commons es el único lugar adecuado para alojar estos ficheros y son contenido específico. Si non es asi, por favor EugeneZelenko expliqueme por qué no estás de acuerdo
- [EN] I think that Commons is the only suitable place to house this files because their specificity. Please EugeneZelenko explain me why you do not agree
Joram (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use, keeping this (in dubio pro reo...) Steinsplitter (talk) 16:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Benedizioni e canti per Chanukkah Traslitterati.pdf
- File:Haggadah di Pesach Traslitterata.pdf
- File:Tu Bishvat.pdf
- File:Benedizioni e canti per Chanukkah.pdf
- File:Haggadah di Pesach.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Krd 21:08, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Kaddish.pdf
- File:Benedizioni e canti per Chanukkah Traslitterati.pdf
- File:Haggadah di Pesach Traslitterata.pdf
- File:Tu Bishvat.pdf
- File:Benedizioni e canti per Chanukkah.pdf
- File:Haggadah di Pesach.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Derivative works of Warhol require permission from the Warhol Foundation. The prior DR was closed with "others are grafitti which are not covered by copyright" which is neither based on policy, nor copyright law. Fæ (talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Fae's nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no evidence that the cover of this magazine was based on publicly displayed graffiti, it may well be a private work. Derivative works of Warhol require permission from the Warhol Foundation. The prior DR was closed with "others are grafitti which are not covered by copyright" which is neither based on policy, nor copyright law, nor do we know if such a view applies to this particular work as it may not be 'real' graffiti. Fæ (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
A little research leads me to believe this photograph is copyright of the Michael Ochs Archive. Without a source being provided, the precautionary principle must apply. Fæ (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I don't know anything about Michael Ochs, but even taking the claim at face value (that it is "in the style of Andy Warhol"), this appears to be a derivative work. -Pete F (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:INUSE, some posterization + colorization is perfectly plausible as "own work" in this millennium. –Be..anyone (talk) 05:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You may have misunderstood the nomination, the photograph the work is derived from is copyrighted. --Fæ (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The derivative work destroyed the visual evidence which photo was the source. I can see "female head similar to the famous head, but presumably matching millions of women". Stolen the idea, obviously, the title already says it, and the result confirms plagiarism. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Please keep in mind that it is up to the uploader to credibly provide sourcing for their uploads, not up to the rest of the community to attempt to prove a negative, this is why we have the precautionary principle and we should delete images that fail this test due to an absence of evidence. Based on further research the image is clearly a derivative of the portrait you can view at http://www.posterplanet.net/monroe/marilyn-monroe-Classic-Portrait-Mini-poster.htm, which is not available for free use. --Fæ (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- The derivative work destroyed the visual evidence which photo was the source. I can see "female head similar to the famous head, but presumably matching millions of women". Stolen the idea, obviously, the title already says it, and the result confirms plagiarism. –Be..anyone (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- You may have misunderstood the nomination, the photograph the work is derived from is copyrighted. --Fæ (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
- Almost certainly should be deleted. And if "Michel Ochs" doesn't ring a bell, perhaps you could look him up in Wikipedia. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader did not take the photo of Marilyn Monroe used to 4up and colorize this image. Therefore COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Previously published in higher resolution here. FDMS 4 20:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, low quality 30 KB thumb of older bigger version, tagged as {{Blurry}}, but it is INUSE. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
An email was received in OTRS about this picture File:Ioannina Greece.jpg. The person who sent the email said that he took the photo and that the user copy it from his account at [8]. According to this link, the picture was submitted at 2006-02-21 13:22. In commons the picture was submitted at 2007-09-01. Xaris333 (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: It was transferred from enwp with a loss of history, However, enwp shows this for an original upload on 2007-05-20. The email complaint looks persuasive to me. Thincat (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per email complaint & discussion Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Should be classed as non-free in country of origin (United Kingdom). Cloudbound (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Template:User xx-5
[edit]Unused or almost unused babel level 5 user templates confusing the deprecated traditional level 0..4 babel system, excluding {{User en-5}} as special bragging rights case:
–Be..anyone (talk) 01:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, unless {{User en-5}} goes too. Whoever wants to bragg, they should be able to, about any language, not just English. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- ____________
- Kept. User xxx-5 also excist on en.wikipedia. Users can bragg if they want. --MGA73 (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be replaced with wiki-tables.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: The files are in use so they are in scope. (I agree that on wiki files like this should be written in tables but files could also be used outside wiki.) --MGA73 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Vladislav Titelbah painted this in ca. 1900. Đura Jakšić painted his in 1858. This upload is inferior, should be replaced with [[::File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah.jpg]]. Zoupan (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Sry other authors would eventuly would like to use the other pic. Sanandros (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
My previous nomination wasn't clear enough.
This upload is inferior, should be replaced with [[::File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah.jpg]]. However, as the name is wrong (Jakšić instead of Titelbah), the file should be redirected to Đura Jakšić's painting. So, there are two different paintings by different authors, one of them having two uploads, one of which is inferior (this one, with the wrong name). So: –Inferior, wrong name upload– should be deleted. Zoupan (talk) 00:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
- If the name of the image is wrong, you just need to ask the image to be removed, and there is no need to delete.
- If there are several images of the same painting, there is neither any reason to delete. We can keep all of them and let users chose which one they want.
Therefore, Keep and please tell us what image shoud be related, the proposed name and the reason to rename.--Pere prlpz (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- File:Knez Lazar Hrebeljanović, by Đura Jakšić.jpg should be moved to File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah, alternate.jpg (as the superior image is File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah.jpg). The reason for renaming is that the name refers to File:Knez Lazar, Đura Jakšić.jpg (another painting). Please take a look at the images, my request is not unsubstantiated.--Zoupan (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Kept: The image was renamed (File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah, alternate.jpg), but kept, because even if its quality is lower, the painting is not cropped as in File:Knez Lazar, Vladislav Titelbah.jpg. BrightRaven (talk) 08:36, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
poniewaz nie jest to właściwy herb miasta, nie jest zgodny ze statutem 85.221.210.175 12:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Deletion reasons need to be in line with COM:D - files do not necessarily need to comply with all local laws. Green Giant (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Keep KeepKept: No indication of why the file was proposed for deletion. Green Giant (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
