Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/07/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This file was initially tagged by Pippobuono as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: beautiful painting but with strange head Yann (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status / out of scope. FDMS 4 01:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio. No ticket. Cjp24 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Denniss. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Greece Ymblanter (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Ancient road. Moreover, this is a bad-faith vengeance nomination for the deletions of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. See also User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ancient road, but modern graffiti.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep I see an ancient stone road with a woman's leg and part of her dress at left, and a man's lower leg at right. I don't see any graffiti or any other copyrightable element. INeverCry 19:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)- Keep per INC. Revent (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: I withdraw this one; I see indeed that the colored parts are not graffiti as I though but details of living people. Ymblanter (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Philippines Ymblanter (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. COM:DM. Moreover, this is a bad-faith vengeance nomination for the deletions of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. See also User talk:P199#Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Not sure it is DM, certainly requires some discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per COM:DM. It's a skyline with no focus on any particular copyrighted structure. INeverCry 19:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per INC. Comments about 'why' the image was nominated are off-topic at a DR. Revent (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No OTRS/proofs of "own" photo (no info EXIF); probably photomontage based on some video frame. Not neutral montage. A5b (talk) 19:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Deleted as copyvio - 20:22, 9 July 2015 INeverCry (talk | contribs) deleted page File:LR8sbzs-JaY.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) (global usage; delinker log) `A5b (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by J'aimelart as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: My mistake: this picture is not the photo of an original artwork, but the photo of a photo of an artwork; as I cannot be sure I have rights to copy this photo PD-Art applies. Yann (talk) 14:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whmm... photo of a photo of a photo... of a 2D work is still a reproduction of a 2D work and therefore in the PD IMHO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I don’t know… The original artwork by Allongé is of course not copyrighted; but I don’t know who has taken the photo of the original work and when; by the way this photo is also an object, with its own condition (which is not perfect), and I am not sure that the owner would like to publish this photo. If I have uploaded my file, it’s because I sincerely thought it was the original work by Allongé, but it wasn’t (my mistake). If I had known it was a reproduction, I would had never uploaded it… To my opinion it would be better to delete it to avoid further discussions; also, as the uploader, I would prefer to delete it to maintain coherency with the other pictures I have uploaded (it could be re-uploaded by another pseudonym). And finally, if it is decided to keep it, at least the filename should be changed (not a charcoal, but a photo). --J'aimelart (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @J'aimelart: Bonjour,
- La photo d'une œuvre d'art en 2D ne crée pas un nouveau droit d'auteur. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 20:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peut-être; mais celui qui a fait la photo a peut-être des droits sur la reproduction de cette photo? --J'aimelart (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Non, justement. On considère qu'une telle photo n'est pas assez originale pour créer un droit d'auteur. Voyez Commons:Quand utiliser le bandeau PD-Art. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Donc je vais le dire autrement. Au départ il y a un dessin original d’Allongé. Un photographe professionnel que je ne connais pas a fait une photo de ce dessin, dans le but de la diffuser selon un processus commercial. Le fait est que le propriétaire actuel de cette photo (qui n’est pas moi) l’a achetée dans le cadre de ce processus commercial. En diffusant cette photo sur Commons d’une certaine façon je vais à l’encontre des intérêts de ce photographe (ou de l'entreprise chargée de la commercialiser) qui n’aurait sans doute pas souhaité voir sa photo diffusée ainsi ; de plus je ne sais pas dater la photo (je parle aussi bien de la photo que de son support, c'est-à-dire l’objet lui-même) : elle semble ancienne, mais ce pourrait être aussi bien 1900, 1950, voire plus récent avec un vieillissement artificiel pour « faire authentique ».
- Pour utiliser PD-Art, cela n'a pas d'importance que la photo est été prise quand l'œuvre a été créée, ou très récemment. Du point de vue des droits d'auteur, le résultat final sera le même. J'ai modifié la description et la licence. Yann (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Donc je vais le dire autrement. Au départ il y a un dessin original d’Allongé. Un photographe professionnel que je ne connais pas a fait une photo de ce dessin, dans le but de la diffuser selon un processus commercial. Le fait est que le propriétaire actuel de cette photo (qui n’est pas moi) l’a achetée dans le cadre de ce processus commercial. En diffusant cette photo sur Commons d’une certaine façon je vais à l’encontre des intérêts de ce photographe (ou de l'entreprise chargée de la commercialiser) qui n’aurait sans doute pas souhaité voir sa photo diffusée ainsi ; de plus je ne sais pas dater la photo (je parle aussi bien de la photo que de son support, c'est-à-dire l’objet lui-même) : elle semble ancienne, mais ce pourrait être aussi bien 1900, 1950, voire plus récent avec un vieillissement artificiel pour « faire authentique ».
- Non, justement. On considère qu'une telle photo n'est pas assez originale pour créer un droit d'auteur. Voyez Commons:Quand utiliser le bandeau PD-Art. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Peut-être; mais celui qui a fait la photo a peut-être des droits sur la reproduction de cette photo? --J'aimelart (talk) 20:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
D’autre part, et c’est un autre sujet, à titre personnel d’uploader, je souhaite retirer cette photo, car elle ne correspond pas à ma propre politique d’upload (qui est de n’uploader que des photos d’œuvres d’art originales) : si elle se retrouve sur Commons c’est parce qu’en toute bonne foi je pensais avoir affaire à l’original et non à une photo (ce qui est une erreur de ma part, j’aurais du mieux me renseigner… Mais l’erreur est humaine n’est-ce pas !).
Maintenant je comprends bien que du fait que la photo se retrouve dans la base de Commons elle est publique, et que Commons n’en a absolument rien à faire des souhaits ou de l’éthique des uploaders. Mais de mon point de vue, il est extrêmement dérangeant que mon pseudonyme reste attaché à une photo que je renie pour des raisons qui ne sont pas celles d’un simple caprice. Si Commons souhaite garder la photo malgré la mise en garde sur les droits commerciaux, je peux proposer la façon de faire suivante : je re-uploade cette photo (à 1 ou 2 pixels près et sous un autre filename) depuis un autre pseudonyme, et je demande la suppression de celle sous mon pseudo comme étant « duplicate ». Ainsi la photo resterait dans la base Commons, et mon éthique et la cohérence de mes uploads se trouveraient préservés. --J'aimelart (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Je peux réimporter le fichier moi-même si vous préférez. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oui ce serait sans doute préférable, et aussi plus pratique pour moi, cela m’éviterait de créer un pseudo juste pour çà… Çà peut être effectivement intéressant de conserver la photo, car on ne sait pas où se trouve l’original d’Allongé, cela contribue donc à une meilleure connaissance de l’artiste. Merci beaucoup pour cette proposition qui me convient parfaitement (il faudrait mettre un filename un peu différent, par exemple « Allongé Auguste – Paysage », je ne suis pas sûr que ce soit utile de conserver les dimensions dans le nom car on ne sait pas si la photo est réduite ou pas par rapport à l’original). Cordialement,--J'aimelart (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Renamed to File:Auguste Allongé - Paysage.jpg. Yann (talk) 10:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
No permission (OTRS) since October 2, 2012. Chugunkin (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Invalid request. A.Savin 08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Naderclanska4 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful INeverCry 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Beltza-aitor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Francisco Agustin Hernandez.jpg
- File:Francisco Agustin Hernández Pérez.jpg
- File:Francisco Agustin Hernández - Trader profesional.jpg
- File:Francisco Agustin Hernández.jpg
INeverCry 23:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No indication of license at source. User has uploaded several other clearly (c) marked maps to transit routes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No indication on company logo or possibility on copyright file/image after publish into public media on the rail transit map itself. Unless it has been copyrighted then you'll knew it from the image. Therefore, it will no published into public media. Please look & find yourself to proved it copyrighted from any sources you can find in the media/internet. Delete then. 175.136.177.243 08:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just because something is made freely available does not mean that it is free from copyright restrictions. The source webpage states "Hak Cipta Terpelihara Prasarana Malaysia Berhad", which translates as "Copyright Reserved Prasarana Malaysia Berhad". On Commons we can only host files that are explicitly released under a free license.--Joshua (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johnny Pire (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
Mjrmtg (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johnny Pire (talk · contribs)
[edit]promotional images, no evidence of permission, possibly out of scope
- File:Johnny Pire zoc.png
- File:Johnny Pire salsapop cantante.png
- File:I love Johnny Pire.png
- File:Johnny Pire salsapop.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire cantante.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire tributo a Marc Anthony.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire web.png
- File:Johnny Pire.png
- File:Johnny Pire zocalo.png
- File:Johnny Pire Valeria Tapia.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire Luis fernando Peña.png
- File:Johnny Pire collage.png
- File:Johnny Pire Friends.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire Salsa Stars.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire 3.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire N´Salsa.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire friends.jpg
- File:Jp - copia.png
- File:Johnnypire4.png
- File:Johnnypire2.jpg
- File:Johnny pire3.png
- File:Johnny pire1.jpg
- File:Johnny pire.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire 1.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire at foro hilvana.jpg
- File:Johny.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire inicios.jpg
Krd 18:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. INeverCry 01:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Johnny Pire (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal/self-promotional images
- File:Johnny pire see you.jpg
- File:Johnny pire y orquesta.jpg
- File:Johnny pire performance.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire.jpg
- File:Johnny pire2.jpg
- File:Johnny pire tuxpan 2015.jpg
- File:Johnny pire 4.jpg
- File:Johnny pire canta.jpg
- File:Johnny pire bravo band.jpg
- File:Johnny pire 0.jpg
- File:Johnny pire 1.jpg
- File:Johnny pire 3.jpg
- File:Johnny pire.jpg
- File:Smile johnny pire.jpg
- File:Johnny pire sun.jpg
- File:Johnny pire acapulco.jpg
- File:Johnny & Valeria.jpg
- File:Acapulco Johnny Pire.jpg
- File:Maelo Ruiz y Johnny Pire.jpg
- File:Luis Fernando Peña y Johnny Pire.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire driving.jpg
- File:Johnny in Acapulco.jpg
- File:Singing Johnny.jpg
- File:Johnny Pire & his Beauty girl Valeria Tapia.jpg
- File:Zocalo Johnny Pire.jpg
INeverCry 23:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alfonsoeli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Except for the selfie, I have no confidence that any photo in this user's upload gallery is the own work of the user who appears to be a teenager taking a photo in a mirror. No metadata, widely varying styles, colors, sizes, white balances show that these are not own work, but culled from a variety of sources.
- File:Rafael Marquez (Tri).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (Hellaa Verona).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (FC Barcelona).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (Red Bull).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (Leon).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (Monaco).jpg
- File:Rafael Marquez (Atlas).jpg
- File:Alan Pulido 2015.jpg
- File:Jona con el Tri 2015.jpg
- File:Jonathan FC Barça.jpg
- File:Jona dos Santos Villarreal CF.jpg
- File:Diego Reyes 2015.jpg
- File:Diego Reyes (FC Porto).jpg
- File:Diego Reyes (America).jpg
- File:J.M. Corona.jpg
- File:Corona CF Monterrey.jpg
- File:Jesus "Tecatito" Corona F.C. Twente.jpg
- File:Carlos Salcedo (Chivas vs Veracruz).jpg
- File:Uli Davila.jpg
- File:Carlos Salcedo (Real).jpg
- File:Raul Gudiño (Chivas).jpg
- File:RAUL GUDIÑO.jpg
- File:RG71.jpg
- File:Javier Aquino en la Copa America 2015.jpg
- File:El tecatico con el Tri.jpg
- File:Salcedo en Tri.jpg
- File:Gudiño MEX.jpg
- File:Guillermo Ochoa MEX.jpg
- File:R. Gudiño.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parashnath Kumar Mahto (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Richard TCHAO (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this tiny image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 22:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Martu plaza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
- File:Amigas x siempre.jpg
- File:Sonrie yo existo.jpg
- File:Se tu isma no dejes q la sociedad te cambie.jpg
- File:No te dejes llebar por las apariencias de los demas.jpg
- File:Disfruta el momento.jpg
INeverCry 22:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AndrewStone123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maquinadefuego666 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 22:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 22:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 22:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal images
INeverCry 23:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Matiia (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unknown people, so no notability ; No use ; No category ; No encyclopedic value Civa (talk) 16:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Arsenal logo is copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, not in COM:SCOPE; potentially a privacy violation. Keφr (keep talk here) 18:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Pratyushtiw / logs who 1st attempt to upload an related image (File:Parrinello.jpg) failed due to copyvio. Gunnex (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Fictional description ; unknown location ; very small image (copyvio ?) ; unknown building ; no use ; no encyclopedic value Civa (talk) 18:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Uploaded by 1-upload user PhysicsHiggs (talk · contributions · Statistics) in 12.2012 this file is most likely a (cropped) video screenshot of (+/-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi6qsb_hSEA#t=03m33s (2011, © by "ICTP PIO", part 1, or somewhere from part 2). Gunnex (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No OTRS/proofs of "own" photo (no info EXIF); probably photomontage based on some video frame or photo. Not neutral montage. A5b (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AljhonGarcia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs of an apparently non-notable person.
- File:Aljhon.jpg
- File:Aljhon garcia4.jpg
- File:Aljhon garcia3.jpg
- File:Aljhon garcia1.jpg
- File:Aljhon garcia2.jpg
- File:Aljhon garcia.jpg
Robert Weemeyer (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use ; snapshot from a computer screen ; this photo is the only upload of the user. Civa (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Parce que son auteur, moi meme, desire le supprimer. JessWiki30 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: not a reason for deletion, but out of project scope Didym (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use ; this photo is the only upload of the user. Civa (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dasolisalifumustapha (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal image ; No notability ; No use ; the user has uploaded only these 4 photos whose the subject is himself.
- File:Dasoli Salifu Mustapha 2.jpg
- File:Dasoli Salifu Mustapha 3.jpg
- File:Dasoli Salifu Mustapha.jpg
- File:Dasoli Salifu Mustapha 1.jpg
Civa (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Contains copyrighted elements from https://www.facebook.com/HorlicksPakistan/videos?fref=photo —teb728 t c 19:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete as clear copyvio. In use only in en:Wikipedia, then, the uploader must upload locally as Fair use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anntinomy as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Not educationally useful INeverCry 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as wikimedia event file Basvb (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anntinomy as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Not educationally useful INeverCry 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as wikimedia event file Basvb (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anntinomy as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Not educationally useful INeverCry 20:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as wikimedia event file Basvb (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Dubious authorization. The uploader has uploaded only one file and his user name is quite close to RealpolitikCommons who also uploaded only one file... of the same person (which file is also concerned by a deletion request : Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aymeric Chauprade, novembre 2013.JPG) TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment Well... I eventually found the same photo here on the site of the French radio France Inter with the mention "© Realpolitik-tv - 2011". And Realpolitik-tv is in fact a website founded by Aymeric Chauprade himself. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Needs Com:OTRS-permission. Basvb (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shokachief (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata, and the nature of several of the images.
- File:Abel Lapin WWI.jpg – if this was created by the uploader in 1914, that would make the uploader well over 100 years old
- File:Emanuel Lapin Ex Libris.jpg – apparently, the uploader was also engraving stamps in the 1930s
- File:מנחם חרובי.jpg – supposedly created by the uploader in 1937-03-01
- File:Aba Lapin Building.jpg – supposedly, the uploader created this photo in 1930. It's watermarked by AUTC. According to that site, it was created by an unknown author in 1955.
- File:Moshe Doctori.jpg – supposedly created by the uploader in 1970. No metadata.
- File:Gezer Regional Council Building, Naan.jpg – supposedly created by the uploader in 1975. No metadata.
- File:Moshe Doctori 1.jpg – supposedly created by the uploader in 1980. No metadata.
- File:Pups for Peace.jpg – taken with a Nikon E3100, supposedly on 2004-05-16
- File:Pups for Peace OHS.JPG – taken with a Nikon Coolpix L5 on 2007-04-04
- File:Pups for Peace 2.JPG – taken with a Nikon Coolpix L5 on 2007-05-06
- File:EWB UCSB PERU.JPG – taken with a Pentax Optio A30 on 2007-11-19
- File:מייסי פרגוסון 135 בשדות מושב עזריה.JPG – taken with a Canon PowerShot SD750 on 2008-07-05
- File:Brown Labrador Love Kids.jpg – taken with a BlackBerry 9780 on 2013-12-03
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, false claims of own work on the early works make the later claims unreliable combined with the camera types and nature of the images. Please contact Commons:OTRS if you are owner of a collection with images from the organisation. Basvb (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, J'ai déposée cette image mais Fonderie Darling (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Bonjour, j'ai déposée cette image mais j'ai ai finalement ajouté une autre similaire avec une modification des teintes seulement. J'aimerais donc ne pas encombrer WikiCommons avec un doublon. Merci par avance. Fonderie Darling (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate Basvb (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The artwork depicted (in a frame in the original upload) is unlikely to be own work of that uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission/information on the orginal painting is needed. Basvb (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No corresponde, fue subido por error Casaseneleste (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
No corresponde, fue subido por error Casaseneleste (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope with quite low quality and no description+ cats Basvb (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - modern monument in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast INeverCry 23:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - modern monument in Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast INeverCry 23:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Lizenz stimmt nicht! Johannes Schneider (talk) 23:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Die kannst du aber ändern.--Kopiersperre (talk) 07:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hm der Eigentümer vielmehr gab mir nicht explizit die Lizenz die ich wollte --Johannes Schneider (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Author request Basvb (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
very small, poor description (where is it?), hardly usefull C messier (talk) 14:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Church is identifiable (recognisable although har), thus in scope enough Basvb (talk) 11:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (an advertising of a local event in the children library). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, many other pictures of this, out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
promotional, see description unknown copyright status in the picture Motopark (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: DR/copyvio Basvb (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal image ; No notability ; No use : Commons is not a personal web site Civa (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personal artwork by unknown artist ; unclear description and title (pintura=painting) ; no encyclopedic value Civa (talk) 16:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded for a hoax article about sea chairs ("The Sea Chair (Restus maritima) is a sea mammal native to the south coast of England. It is one of five species of sea furniture."), no source given. McGeddon (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in Belgium Ymblanter (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Indeed, no FoP in Belgium. The photo seems unambiguously intended to explicitly depict the entire structure, including portions that are obviously modern. Without evidence that the more recent parts of the building are not in copyright, we must assume they are. Revent (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per discussion. Basvb (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in a row on 10.12.2013 for cs:Letní filmová škola, an annual film festival organized by the Association of Czech Film Clubs (AČFK) the exifs indicate to copyrighted works by "Marek Malùšek" (example) or "David Kumermann" (example) --> btw, previously published in original res via http://www.designgate.cz/clanek/5592 (04.2013, credit: "foto: AČFK") = http://www.totalfilm.cz/wp-content/uploads/atmosf%C3%A9ra-LF%C5%A0-2.jpg (identical exif).
File:LFS2012 Carlos Saura.jpg (the only one with no photographer name in the exif) is — per similar shot available via http://www.radio.cz/cz/rubrika/kultura/letni-filmova-skola-prilakala-tisice-divaku (credit: "foto: Marek Malušek", .jpg — also a work by "Marek Malùšek".
Despite of having a similar username, the "Association of Czech Film Clubs" user is not necessarily the same person as the Commons user. And it is unclear if this user was authorized by above cited photographers to publish their works under a free license. A verifiable connection via COM:OTRS (or by other means) must be established.
- File:Letni-kino-namesti4--foto-david-kumermann.jpg
- File:LFŠ - Kino Hvězda - diskuze.jpg
- File:LFŠ - Letní kino.jpg
- File:LFŠ - Smetanovy sady.jpg
- File:LFŠ - Kino Hvězda.jpg
- File:Atmosfera-akreditace-fronta-1-foto-david-kumermann.jpg
- File:LFS2013 Pedro Costa.jpg
- File:LFS2012 No Smoking Orchestra.jpg
- File:LFS2012 Istvan Szabo.jpg
- File:LFS2012 Carlos Saura.jpg
- File:LFS2011 Emir Kosturica.jpg
- File:LFS2011 Aki Kaurismaki.jpg
- File:LFS2010 Ken Loach.jpg
- File:LFS2010 Bela Tarr.jpg
- File:LFS2008 Julio Medem.jpg
- File:LFŠ Uherské Hradiště.jpg
- File:2013 Goran Paskaljevic.jpg
- File:2013 Allan Starski.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: We need OTRS-permission. Basvb (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Konknni mogi 24 (talk · contribs)
[edit]There is nothing in this group of photos to give any confidence of user's own work. There are two images with metadata from two different camera, a wiki logo labled "self", two images which look like they were copied from a book, two posters or brochures, two pictures of a priest and two pictures of a woman.
- File:Melissa Simoes, Mapusa.jpg
- File:Melissa Simoes.jpg
- File:Konkani Wikipedia Logo.svg
- File:Bhoddvo Yadnik.pdf
- File:St. Francis Xavier with a bell.jpg
- File:Konkani Wikipedia Leaflet (front).jpg
- File:Konkani Wikipedia Leaflet (back).jpg
- File:Nartaki.png
- File:Shivling1.png
- File:Prakash Parienkar.JPG
- File:Dhangar from Sat'tari,Goa.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (a piece of online advertising). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Yann (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, possible crop of professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lmh.hawkins (talk · contribs)
[edit]Both photos' descriptions and EXIF credit "Parker J Pfister". However, there is no indication that the uploader represents this person or that this person has licensed the files as indicated. It would be great if we could keep these photos, but permission of the copyright holder should be confirmed via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: We need the OTRS-permission Basvb (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused promo/logo. Out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: above TOO logo as well Basvb (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
vandalism, new user is banned Bilderling (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Basvb (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
vandalism, new user is banned Bilderling (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Basvb (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
vandalism, new user is banned Bilderling (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Basvb (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Existing image published also http://www.blooloop.com/news/joravision-creates-themed-bamse-world-at-kolmrde/33989#.VZ55Z0ZFrF0 No permissin and no exifdata present MoiraMoira (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Seems eligible for copyright to me, and might be out of scope anyway. –Tryphon☂ 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Deleted per nomination. abf «Cabale!» 09:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
imagen antigua Myole (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
above TOO Basvb (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and out of scope - not a media file as defined by COM:SCOPE, as it is representative of pure raw text. Storkk (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a movie poster - unlikely to be under the given license. Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 20:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Note that it is not legitimately in use on idwiktionary, as it was a redlink before being uploaded in 2015: https://id.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=mahdi&oldid=369092 Storkk (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Derivative of multiple source works of unknown sources and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 13:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (unknown person, low quality). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope of the project (the portrait of unknown person). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits "praveen bhat photography ", but uploader is a Krishna1337 (talk · contribs). If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional material, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo/artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, poor description, unindetified location. C messier (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
copyvio http://s00.yaplakal.com/pics/pics_original/7/1/3/4900317.jpg GAndy (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Please contact COM:OTRS if you (uploader) are the copyright holder. Basvb (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
unused file, self promotion, sockpuppet (en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vivekanand Selvaraj) Bazj (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused -> out of scope Basvb (talk) 12:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 05:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 05:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
no used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 05:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Basvb (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personnal work (no source). Low quality (invisible data). No interest. Out of scope. Cjp24 (talk) 00:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Now not used, poor quality. See also Commons:Bistro#Votre avis sur l'intérêt d'une photo. Yann (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and discussion. Thibaut120094 (talk) 09:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Personnal work (no source). Low quality. No interest. Out of scope. Cjp24 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: personal notes, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personnal work (no source). Low quality. No interest. Out of scope. Cjp24 (talk) 00:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: personal notes, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Personnal work (no source). Low quality. No interest. Out of scope Cjp24 (talk) 00:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: personal notes, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Taken from the internet. Possible copyvio. Takeaway (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Taken from the internet. Possible copyvio. Takeaway (talk) 02:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Com:DW, no source Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Soulkeylife (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:Willliam Wendt Wyes.png
- File:William Wyes.jpg
- File:William Wendt.jpg
- File:William Wendt Wyes.png
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anar Kafkas as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Image shows a different person Yann (talk) 05:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Superseded|RPR-PARNAS logo.svg}} -Orange-kun (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete: agree with nominator Demmo (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sagar saliya sss (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:ARTIST ,SHOOTER ,MEGA STAR,SORT FILM ,SIMPLE LIVING.jpg
- File:SUPER MOST.jpg
- File:SELFI.jpg
- File:ACTOR,DANCER,SINGER,GRAMA ARTIST.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, user with bad history, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Minsk in Belarus has no FOP Leoboudv (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Costa Rica has no Freedom of Panorama for modern buildings or sculptures. Leoboudv (talk) 05:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
User thought that when she uploaded the PDF she was creating an article. She has no means in using the PDF on any page on Wikipedia and it serves no meaningful purpose. Mbch331 (talk) 08:31, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Linnea7402 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unconsistent EXIF data (4 different cameras in 5 pictures), unlikely to be own works.
- File:Gitscheynius.jpg
- File:Sffjunior15.JPG
- File:Bronshast.JPG
- File:Gentelmen sff14.jpg
- File:Sommarbio 2012.jpg
Yann (talk) 11:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable studio portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits "Brice ROBERT Photographe", whereas uploader is Guillaumeduche (talk · contribs). Likely copyright violation. Storkk (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio (the architect Le Flanchec died in 1986 and there is no FoP in France) Remi Mathis (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely copyright violation. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata (222×131), own work is not sure. Probably copyright violation. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution, not yet nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: non-free information board. Eleassar (t/p) 12:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No metadata, probable professional headshot: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Note: uploader is an indefblocked sockpuppet, but I do not believe this precludes them from confirming license via COM:OTRS, even if it might color OTRS's opinion on uploader's veracity. Storkk (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely stock photo and therefore copyright violation. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, possible TV or video still: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, possible professional photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Probable professional portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:18, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:B2con.jpg
- File:Operaciones.jpg
- File:Vurgoz.jpg
- File:Puyehue1.jpg
- File:Puyehue2.jpg
- File:R2.jpg
- File:B2 2da.jpg
- File:Segundinos.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Historiasenvenezuela (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work:missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JhonisSanchez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Jhonatan Sánchez concierto en vivo.jpg
- File:Jhonatan Sánchez en el Roble.jpg
- File:Jhonatan Sánchez en el Ccoriwasi.jpg
- File:Jhonatan sanchez.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 06:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Fair use (Fair use) Yann (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I am not very conversant with fair use provisions, especially as concerns the US, but this picture is the flyer issued by Goethe-Institut Kamerun and is meant to be used to advertise the Cameroon Wikithon 1 event. Please enlighten me if it should not be on Wiki Commons. QuartierMozart (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I am the author of the poster, working at Goethe-Institut Kamerun (http://www.goethe.de/ins/cm/en/yao/uun/mit/inz.html). It's ok to use the file with cc-by-sa . --UJung (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. I can't see how this image is a problem. The main element is the WP logo (which freely licensed). The rest is plain text (ineligible for copyright) and another simple logo below TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 19:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per P199. Yann (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Die Verbreitung im Internet von Hinrichtungsvideos ohne Altersbeschränkung (eine welche es ja bei Wikipedia und Wikicommons nicht gibt) ist gesetzeswidrig. Unbeschadet strafrechtlicher Verantwortlichkeit sind Angebote unzulässig, wenn sie grausame oder sonst unmenschliche Gewalttätigkeiten gegen Menschen in einer Art schildern, die das Grausame oder Unmenschliche des Vorgangs in einer die Menschenwürde verletzenden Weise darstellt [§ 4 (1) JMStV - Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag, Staatsvertrag über den Schutz der Menschenwürde und den Jugendschutz in Rundfunk und Telemedien (Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag – JMStV)]. Es steht außer Frage, daß die Menschenwürde des dargestellten, wenn auch nur filmischen Enthauptungsopfers durch die Darstellung der Enthauptung verletzt wird. Hieran ändert auch die Historizität der Darstellung bzw. Verfilmung nichts. Sofern Anbieter Angebote, die geeignet sind, die Entwicklung von Kindern oder Jugendlichen zu einer eigenverantwortlichen und gemeinschaftsfähigen Persönlichkeit zu beeinträchtigen, verbreiten oder zugänglich machen, haben sie dafür Sorge zu tragen, dass Kinder oder Jugendliche der betroffenen Altersstufen sie üblicherweise nicht wahrnehmen, § 5 (1) JMStV. Das Video ist daher zu löschen. Uwe Martens (talk) 00:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: First of all, Commons is not censored. File uploaded in 2008 and widely in use. Motion picture filmed in the US (German laws does not apply) before 1923 (Copyright expired), and just a recreation as indicated in the description. No reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep: the insanity of trying to get such a historical and public domain video deleted from Wikimedia blows my mind. I wonder if the user is doing that with other less watched files too? So weird. Nesnad (talk) 04:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Firstly, this is obviously a staged reenactment, apparently in the public domain, and even if it were real, Commons is not censored, so the arguments put forward by the nominator are not valid here. --DAJF (talk) 04:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Keep for obvious EV. This film is famous as the first trick film in the history of cinema [1] [2], one year before Méliès first use of the same trick (Méliès is wrongly credited by some sources as the inventor of the stop trick). The nominator's claim, that it glorifies violence, is an unsustained anachronic POV. If the film glorifies anything, it is the tragic death of Mary Stuart, a popular theme since Schiller's 1800 play. For an academic discussion of the representation of violence in the film, see "Scenes of Execution: Spectatorship, Political Responsibility, and State Killing in American Film" doi:10.1111/lsi.12084. The authors consider this film "exemplifies the so-called cinema of attractions that characterized the early age of film", quoting in particular Ion Martea's comment : "The idea of the film was to reproduce the historical event using trained actors, not appearing as themselves, but as characters in a story. The issue of performance appears for the first time, allowing cinema to enter the realm of interpretative art." [3]. — Racconish 📥 06:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Media content is considered by the German youth protection laws as harmful to minors if it tends to endanger their process of developing a socially responsible and self-reliant personality [§ 18 (1) JuSchG]. This applies especially to media that contain extremely violent or morally harmful media, as in this case. The supply and distribution of content likely to harm minors and adolescents without age restriction is forbidden and will be punished. If there is no technical possibility to fulfill the German youth protection legislation, e.g. by filtering the IP, the files have to be deleted. Please notice by the way, that I don't have the time to study international youth protection legislation right now!
- PS: @Racconish: I didn't mention in any word that the movie would glorify violence. We're talking about access of small children to the internet and to extremly violent content, independent if a movie or for real, as small children don't make a difference here.
- -- Uwe Martens (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, Commons is not censored and contains several files considered unsuitable for children. As example, there are several Nazi related files (most of them forbidden in Germany), and Commons rejected to delete these files simply because these are historical files that are educationally valuable (the scope of Commons), and the opinion of some users does not matter, as these laws does not matter, too. The Commons policies are clear, the only reason why a file may be illegal to be hosted in Commons, in most of cases, is for copyright violation, that in these cases clearly aren't. So, as your logical, we need to delete all the Adolf Hitler and Nazi flag files... that's is insane, and even worse, it's denying the access of really valuable pieces of History. Stop your witch hunt! --Amitie 10g (talk) 10:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The claim this film would be "harmful to minors and tending to endanger their process of developing a socially responsible and self-reliant personality" is original to say the least. Would the nominator be so kind as to provide quality sources expressing such point of view on this film ? — Racconish 📥 11:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Clear keep. @Uwe Martens: please read the link to which everyone has been pointing you: COM:NOTCENSORED. You might be surprised to learn that we have many COM:PENIS pictures as well, and many other pictures that might get you into trouble in less enlightened places. We delete in-scope images based on copyright (both where the image was made and the US), as well as legality in Florida, and that's about it. We also have many other images that are banned in Germany. They're legal in Florida and out of copyright, and clearly in scope. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment ... which does not mean there is any serious reason to believe this film would be banned in Germany. — Racconish 📥 13:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I am disputing the rationale itself. That the rationale applies here is another question entirely. Storkk (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok, for those, they think, this is only a German case: It is also a European case, see the following, English and German version:
Act of law 98/560/EC
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Whereas the present recommendation addresses, in particular, issues of protection of minors and of human dignity in relation to audiovisual and information services made available to the public, whatever the means of conveyance (such as broadcasting, proprietary on-line services or services on the Internet);
Annex
INDICATIVE GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION, AT NATIONAL LEVEL, OF A SELF-REGULATION FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROTECTION OF MINORS AND HUMAN DIGNITY IN ON-LINE AUDIOVISUAL AND INFORMATION SERVICES
2.2.1. Protection of minors
(b) Presentation of legal contents which may harm minors
Objective: where possible, legal content which may harm minors or affect their physical, mental or moral development should be presented in such a way as to provide users with basic information on its potentially harmful effect on minors.
The codes of conduct should therefore address, for example, the issue of basic rules for the businesses providing on-line services concerned and for users and suppliers of content; the rules should set out the conditions under which the supply and distribution of content likely to harm minors should be subject, where possible, to protection measures such as:
- a warning page, visual signal or sound signal,
- descriptive labelling and/or classification of contents,
- systems to check the age of users.
Priority should be given, in this regard, to protection systems applied at the presentation stage to legal content which is clearly likely to be harmful to minors, such as pornography or violence.
Rechtsakt 98/560/EG
DER RAT DER EUROPÄISCHEN UNION
Die vorliegende Empfehlung befaßt sich insbesondere mit der Problematik des Jugendschutzes und des Schutzes der Menschenwürde in audiovisuellen Diensten und Informationsdiensten, die der Öffentlichkeit zugänglich gemacht werden, unabhängig von der Übertragungsart (z. B. Rundsendedienste, anbieterspezifische Online-Dienste oder Internet-Dienste).
Anhang
LEITSÄTZE FÜR DIE SCHAFFUNG VON SELBSTKONTROLLSYSTEMEN DER MITGLIEDSTAATEN FÜR DEN JUGENDSCHUTZ UND DEN SCHUTZ DER MENSCHENWÜRDE IN DEN ONLINE ANGEBOTENEN AUDIOVISUELLEN DIENSTEN UND INFORMATIONSDIENSTEN
2.2.1. Jugendschutz
(b) Darstellung von Inhalten, die zwar legal, aber jugendgefährdend sind
Ziel: Inhalte, die zwar legal, aber jugendgefährdend sind oder die körperliche, geistige oder charakterliche Entwicklung von Jugendlichen beeinträchtigen konnten, sollten - soweit möglich - so dargestellt werden, daß die Benutzer grundlegende Informationen über ihre potentiell jugendgefährdende Wirkung erhalten.
Die Verhaltenskodizes sollten daher beispielsweise die Frage von Grundregeln für die betreffenden Anbieter von Online-Diensten, Benutzer und Inhalteanbieter behandeln. In den Regeln sollte festgelegt werden, unter welchen Bedingungen bei der Bereitstellung und Verbreitung jugendgefährdender Inhalte - soweit dies möglich ist - Schutzmaßnahmen getroffen werden sollten, wie z. B.:
- eine Begrüßungsseite mit einem Warnhinweis, ein Ton- oder Bildsignal;
- eine beschreibende Kennzeichnung und/oder Einstufung der Inhalte;
- Systeme zur Kontrolle des Alters der Benutzer.
Vorrang sollten dabei Schutzsysteme haben, die bei der Ankündigung von Inhalten zur Anwendung kommen, die zwar legal sind, aber eindeutig jugendgefährdend sein können, wie z. B. Pornographie oder Gewaltdarstellungen.
-- Uwe Martens (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Again, again, and again. The German Laws (except the Copyright Law) does not apply in Commons (only the US Laws). Any (German) court will reject any litigation requesting the removal these kind of files used in an encyclopedia (Wikipedia), because are outside of its jurisdiction (motion picture filmed in the US). Know the laws is important, but more importan is where and how applies.
- If you still want to continue with this witch hunt, go to a court and request the removal there (i'm sure than that court will reject your case). Commons will remove files only if them are Copyvio or outside the Project Scope. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to consistent case-law also the German Wikimedia Commons is responsible for the content provided and distributed within the German territorium. And as I explained further we have all over Europe the same legal situation. If age restriction is not possible, the content have to be deleted or blocked by IP. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Do you seriously think this film would be forbidden to children in Germany
? In any case, the DVD is not... — Racconish 📥 18:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC) - Comment If this DVD has been produced and distributed in and/or out of USA, it hasn't a German FSK of cause! -- Uwe Martens (talk) 18:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment The DVD - coproduced by the MOMA - is sold by Amazon and Ebay in Germany with no particular warning [4] [5]. — Racconish 📥 06:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment From a broader perspective, the
EECEuropean Council text you are referring to is a mere guideline ; it addresses chiefly pornography ; you have not established, even remotely, why there would be a concern with this film, either in Germany, or in another country of the EEC (each European country has its own film rating system) ; assuming there would be a specific problem in Germany (which is unlikely), the problem should be addressed on the German wikipedia, not at Commons. — Racconish 📥 06:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC) corrected 12:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- Comment This is a recommendation of the Council of the European Union - and not of the European Economic Community (EEC). Each kind of violence is included of cause. The DVD you linked to has been produced and imported from USA, as Amazon and Ebay are international platforms. Responsible for warnings would be the seller. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 10:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to consistent case-law also the German Wikimedia Commons is responsible for the content provided and distributed within the German territorium. And as I explained further we have all over Europe the same legal situation. If age restriction is not possible, the content have to be deleted or blocked by IP. -- Uwe Martens (talk) 16:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![211 File:Эволюция логотипов "Колёс" и "Крыши".jpg](#File:Эволюция_логотипов_"Колёс"_и_"Крыши".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2015-03-17.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){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§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, COM:INUSE. –Be..anyone (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Meanwhile two related DRs 1+2 here and a quick poll on dewiki are closed. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 11:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation, not under freedom of panorama. The artist Friedensreich Hundertwasser died only in 2000. Artsfriends (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- As a matter of interest, why isn't this covered by Freedom of Panorama? The FoP article map indicates both New Zealand and Austria are "OK + public interiors" (which I would imagine includes the inside of a public toilet). Or am I missing something? Xyl 54 (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: FoP-New Zealand applies. Yann (talk) 11:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope Friedrichstrasse (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Why not? Yann (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Photo produced at earliest in 1896, company finished trading in 1950. No evidence author died before 1945. Nilfanion (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK for me. Yann (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No dead of death of photographer given to support copyright free status in UK; many works made in 1920 are still in copyright in the UK Hchc2009 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- Don't get it?? "If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner", then re-open the debate. But they have not. Decision has been made above to keep, so let's abide by that.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC))
- I wouldn't necessarily give much weight to the initial keep closure by Yann - its a closure based on gut feeling, with no real evidence either way at that time. This photograph was probably taken by Sydney Newton (died 1960, so PD in UK in 2030). The original photograph was donated to English Heritage; the copyright may have been transferred too. The US copyright also seems suspect, as I see no evidence this was published close to the time it was taken. The publication date is likely to be after EH obtained the negative. In that case, it is not PD in the United States. However, I'm not really sure how US copyright works - this may technically be unpublished for US purposes.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- pinging Lobsterthermidor, Nilfanion, and ~riley
- This deletion request if settled delete as it would appear to be, also affects File:MohunsOttery Luppitt Devon FrontDoor.jpg by the same photographer of same building. Note:
- http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/rd/b6f6ab10-b423-4df3-a0fa-45849ddcbe98 reads "Copyright: Reproduced By Permission Of English Heritage. National Monuments Record" and
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wotton_station_%28Brill_Tramway%29_1906.jpg is in fair use on en:Wiki for the copyright issues relative to the death date of photographer Sydney Newton as above.
- I think in light of the fair use on en:wiki and the statement by the National Archives that these images are not able to be retained on Commons. However, it might be advisable to migrate them to en:wiki under fair use. That way the images would still be visible and you can follow the format on the one I have linked above. Having now stated an opinion and offered information, I am precluded from closing this discussion and await another admin's assistance. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Sorry but the link provided by Ellin certainly creates significant doubt. --Natuur12 (talk) 19:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Photo produced at earliest in 1896, company finished trading in 1950. No evidence author died before 1945. Nilfanion (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Source says photo taken between 1896 and 1920. The photographer would have been elderly by 1945, quite probably deceased. If he was a young man in 1920, WWI & WWII occurred between 1920 and 1945, increasing chance he was dead by 1945. It seems the assumption is not unreasonable, and this image is not high profile therefore on a sensible risk-based approach, I would argue it's perfectly reasonable to utilise under this licence.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC))
- However, the family-owned company did not cease trading until 1950. Which strongly indicates that, at minimium, the "son" was alive in 1949. No indication who took the photo either. And I didn't realise WW1 occurred between 20 and 45? :)--Nilfanion (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK for me. Yann (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
de:X-film® deleted; no further use WolfgangRieger (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above: out of scope. Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
faulty image (not displaying) Bazj (talk) 10:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
unused image Bazj (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncertain copyright, no permission. Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
copyright image on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted images on labels Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted images on labels Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted image on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
copyright artwork on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: what kind of artwork? It's a simple image of a fruit and some Japanese characters, the latter hardly subject to copyright. Teemeah (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Teemeah: Why would a "simple image of fruit" not be copyrighted? If it's a drawing, it's quite detailed and someone drew it. If it's a photo, someone photographed it. It's not just a simple geometric shape that wouldn't be subject to copyright. - Themightyquill (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Themightyquill: we could argue about the threshold of creativity in this case, and the quality of the image on the packaging but instead I simply blanked out the copyrighted image on the packaging. You can delete the previous versions of the file. What we want to illustrate is the vinegar, not the packaging. Teemeah (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Fine by me, @Teemeah: . I understand that product packaging creates a difficult problem for commons, but if you're okay with the current version, it obviously doesn't risk copyright infringement. I'll leave admins to decide if the previous version needs deletion. I don't know what the rules are about that. - Themightyquill (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not the creator of the image I just moved it from enwiki. But I think it should be ok as blanked out, and should be possible to keep other product photos where the possibly copyrighted photos/drawings are blanked out/pixelated. In essence for food items we want to show what these products look like, the packaging design is irrelevant. Yuzu vinegar is not a well known product that everyone would be familiar with, so a photo helps to see what the liquid looks like (color, texture etc). Teemeah (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OK with new version. Yann (talk) 12:20, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
copyright image on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Logo. Can't be fee & own Bilderling (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Clearly {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Textlogo Yann (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Logo. Can't be free & own Bilderling (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Clearly {{PD-Textlogo}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:57, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Textlogo Yann (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely passes COM:TOO, given the background. No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder. Storkk (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Source en.wiki is not a good one. Small photo without metadata, can be found at http://www.99tour.ro/timp-liber/bucuresti/stadion/stadionul-ghencea-1536 Maybe this is copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
File can be deleted. It has been replaced by the English Wikipedia version of the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P.Verbiest (talk • contribs)
- On en-wiki, but it is in use in 7 other wikis. Basvb (talk) 12:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Much bigger image here. Yann (talk) 12:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Artwork purportedly from 2012. I believe better evidence of PD status is required. Storkk (talk) 13:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: © Ran Hwang. Yann (talk) 12:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Лабушева Анна (talk · contribs)
[edit]Professional images, probably uploaded by the person on the images. But if, she is claerly not the photographer, as she stated. And at least one of these images is to found at the intenet with other copyrights.
- File:G7Hv J4zfzY.jpg
- File:Известный Шеф-Повар Анна Лабушева.jpg
- File:Известный Шеф-Повар Анна Дабушева.jpg
Marcus Cyron (talk) 13:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Prtonthat15 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are all 3-dimensional artworks from 1995 and more recently. There is no reason I can see to believe that they are out of copyright.
Storkk (talk) 13:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Could it be that the Brooklyn museum has obtained copyrights on those objects (or images of those objects)? Basvb (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- One deleted, two kept. License updated and reviewed. Yann (talk) 12:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
User takes photos or video extracts of people from various sources, editing them with some fancy (but not very educational) effects and uploads the result as own work. Its not entirely own work and therefore not entirely free.
- File:Jean Jacques Marie 01.jpg
- File:Jean Courtin 01.jpg (dolmendeclamarquier.blogspot)
- File:Jean Courtin.jpg
- File:Pierre Broué, historien 02.jpg
- File:Pierre Broué, historien 01.jpg
- File:Pierre Broué.jpg
- File:Jean-Pierre Jackson 02.jpg
- File:Jean-Pierre Jackson 01.jpg (babelio.com)
- File:Jean-Pierre Jackson swing-messengers.jpg
- File:Georges Braque portrait 02.jpg
- File:Geoges Brque portrait craie et fusain.jpg
- File:Georges Braque ocre et pastel.jpg
- File:Émile Peynaud.jpg (buenavida.com.mx)
- File:Henri Enjalbert.jpg
- File:Jean Bernard Plantevin.jpg
- File:Guy Bonnet.jpg
- File:André Chiron.jpg ([6])
- File:Bernard Faucon.jpg
- File:Guy Barruol.jpg
- File:Gil Jouanard.jpg (copyvio from poesieavignon.eu)
- File:Élisabeth Barbier.jpg
- File:Willy Ronis.jpg
- File:Hans Silvester.jpg
- File:Jean Paul Clébert.jpg (oppede.fr)
- File:Louis Gros sénateur.jpg (senat.fr)
- File:Jean Garcin pdt conseil général Vaucluse copie.jpg (mirrored version of ville-lethor.fr
File:Aimé Guibert.jpg- File:Caveau du mas de Daumas-Gassac.jpg
- File:Jean-Pierre Perrin Beaucastel 01.jpg
- File:Gérard Gelas.jpg ([7])
- File:Michel Trinquier peintre.jpg (possible source)
- File:André Benedetto.jpg (mirrored version of mvtpaix.org)
- File:Léon Sagy craie et fusain.jpg
- File:Jean Giono 02.jpg
- File:Jean Giono 01.jpg
- File:Chanoine Joseph Sautel.jpg
- File:Henri Bosco portrait.jpg
- File:Jean Giono by JPS68.jpg
- File:Fernand Point.jpg
- File:Jean Giono craie et fusain.jpg
- File:Jean Giono dessin à la plume.jpg
- File:Pierre Martel Alpes de Lumière 01.jpg
- File:Fernand Benoit.jpg
- File:Jean Giono noir et blanc.jpg
- File:Jean Garcin pdt CG copie.jpg
- File:01 Georges Bataille.jpg
Martin H. (talk) 08:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Support. Copyright concerns and the manipulation of the image takes away the educational quality of the photos. Missvain (talk) 14:40, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted: Useless in this state, and per nom and Missvain Courcelles (talk) 07:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
- File:Plateau d'Albion Maquis Ventoux chemins de Mémoire Panneau général.JPG
- File:Plateau d'Albion Maquis Ventoux chemins de Mémoire n°21 Brouville.JPG
Thibaut120094 (talk) 08:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Il ne s'agit ni de bâtiments, ni d'œuvres d'art. Il ni a donc aucun problème de FOP concernant ces photos ! Marianne Casamance (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- FOP also applies for 2D artworks, and the text is probably copyrighted. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: 2D artwork, also not accepted on the French WP. Yann (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Because I just don't want this picture on wikimedia commons Ensemble Lucilin (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unidentified subject, unused, unremarkable within its scope, request by uploader Pitke (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by GeoWriter as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Source is not USGS (Public Domain) as claimed. Source is Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Kyushu whose website says private use only, therefore not acceptable for Wikimedia Commons Thibaut120094 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Text on the Wikimedia Commons description page for this photo says "Photo by Yasuo Miyabuchi, 1996 (Forestry and Forest Products Research Institute, Kyushu).". It is a copyright violation. I don't understand why you (User:Thibaut120094) believe this photo does not qualify for speedy deletion. GeoWriter (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Pitke (talk) 13:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Horcrux92 as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: same file: File:Water polo ball icon.png (please specify the other file in the delete reason) Yann (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is a duplicate, erroneously uploaded by me. Why open a DR? --Horcrux92 (talk) 09:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of file:Water polo ball icon.png. @Horcrux92: next time just use {{Duplicate}} for speedy deletion of duplicate files. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Logo. Cant be free& own Bilderling (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
![11:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/07/09#c-Bilderling-2015-07-09T11:36:00.000Z-File:Эволюция_логотипов_"Колёс"_и_"Крыши".jpg){kind=link}
Kept: below COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
![15:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2015/07/09#c-P199-2015-07-22T15:29:00.000Z-File:Эволюция_логотипов_"Колёс"_и_"Крыши".jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. Unclear copyrights status of image.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC) EGS53: I want to delete these files because I do not like how it looks in the publication. I want to post better file.
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wolfgang Neumann (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Diese Dokumente wurden von mir erstellt. Die Bilder wurden mit einer Einzelplatzlizenz des Europa-Lehrmittelverlags eingefügt.
Grüsse Wolfgang Neumann
Deleted: as per nom. Or more suitable for Wikisource or Wikiversity. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Logo. Can't be own nor free Bilderling (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Seems bellow the COM:TOO. {{PD-Textlogo}} applies here. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low resolution, uploaded a better PNG version Mickeylove01 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: superseded by File:Halsey LA (1).PNG. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low resolution, uploaded a better PNG version Mickeylove01 (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: superseded by File:Halsey LA (2).PNG. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low resolution, uploaded a better PNG version Mickeylove01 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: superseded by File:Halsey LA (3).PNG. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was uploaded by me (User:Appleyton) without the correct permissions from the copyright holder, with incorrect licencing information. Appleyton (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Can you explain this further? The flag is posted as 'own work', is this incorrect? JTdale Talk 17:58, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This flag (created and uploaded by me User:Appleyton) is innacurate. Furthermore, its use here may infringe on the copyright of the City of Hobart, for which the proper permissions were not saught. Appleyton (talk) 00:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
_2015-03-17.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2015-03-17.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation. The artist Friedemann Klos is still alive. The sculpture is not under freedom of panorama. It is situated in Otto Niemeyer-Holstein's former garden Lüttenort which is completely fenced in. House and garden are run as a private museum and open for visitors only by request. The sculpture is not seen from outside. Artsfriends (talk) 01:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
_2015-03-17.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
_2015-03-17.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in France. Thibaut120094 (talk) 08:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Il ne s'agit ni d'un bâtiment, ni d'une œuvre d'art. Il ni a donc aucun problème de FOP concernant cette photo ! Marianne Casamance (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- FOP also applies for 2D artworks, and the text is probably copyrighted. Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in France, text under (c) as well. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted packaging Themightyquill (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, little fruit image is DM, the rest is simple text-based labeling, likely {{PD-ineligible}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The design of the label itself is (c), gradients and all. Text alone would be fine. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Logo. Can't be own and free Bilderling (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: not a free item, still under (c) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This image (scan) is copyright Mary Evans Picture Library / Grenville Collins Postcard Collection. The original postcard is owned by Grenville Collins and copyright in the scan of the original work is copyright to Mary Evans Picture Library under UK law. We request immediate deletion of this image from Wiki - Thanks, Tom Gillmor, Head of Content, Mary Evans Picture Library 80.71.13.211 11:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Copyright expired ca. If the work was published before 30 August 1989 then copyright expires 70 years after first publication. A scan itself doesn't create a new work = simple scan not copyrightable. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright artwork on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep, simple text-based labeling, likely {{PD-ineligible}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Above TOO Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
copyrighted artwork on labels Themightyquill (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, images on the labels are DM, and the rest is simple text-based labeling. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Labels are (c), gradient, baby picture, etc.. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted artwork on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, little fruit image is DM, rest of packaging is simple text-based labeling. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Not DM, used to illustrate the product. -> Fair use. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright image on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Te picture has no data, the company name is Jora but the picture is not released as free. No author is given/credited either MoiraMoira (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: characters (c) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyright image on label Themightyquill (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep, simple text-based labeling, likely {{PD-ineligible}}. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was more thinking the photos of barrels on the label, not the text. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per Tmq Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
COM:DW. Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I was at this expensive charity function in a public place where cameras where permitted for donors to take pictures of the charity guest speaker and generally the event itself. This picture was taken with my camera.
I am not sure why this means it breaches copyright. I will abide by this request, however I am just concerned that it has been used on quite a few wikipages where it was used in good faith and will lessen the information on those pages.
Best wishes Di — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianeSunshineCoast (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per Yann Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Yann as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: COM:DW. Yann (talk) 14:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I was at this expensive charity function in a public place where cameras where permitted for donors to take pictures of the entertainer, speakers and generally the event itself. This picture was taken with my camera.
- I am not sure why this means it breaches copyright. I was particularly proud to be able to take pictures on my camera that add to wikipedia articles. Could I request that this please stay as it shows a moment in time at the Frontline Appeal in 2008.
- Best wishes Di — Preceding unsigned comment added by DianeSunshineCoast (talk • contribs)
Deleted: Derivate work. See Com:DW Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jz9chen wiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]There are multiple different actors (so-called 'performing artists'), and we don't have evidence of permission from all of those. Unclear if the uploader has anything to do with the creation of these films at all.
Stefan4 (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jz9chen wiki (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private video album. Not used.
- File:MVI 9674.webm
- File:MVI 9673.webm
- File:MVI 9670.webm
- File:MVI 9669.webm
- File:MVI 9662.webm
- File:MVI 9661.webm
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Don't know the purpose of these but high quality videos from 3 angles x2 of the same conversation. Could be advertisement, better descriptions + cat would help a lot. Basvb (talk) 12:18, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete There are multiple actors, and each actor holds the performance right to his contribution. We are missing permission from some of the rightsholders. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: different cameras, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Pool at David Randal Hertz Californication House.jpg
- File:747 Wing House by Architect David Randall Hertz.jpg
- File:Panel House, by architect David Randall Hertz.jpg
- File:Navy Residence, Venice Beach, CA.jpg
- File:Entrance of Mullin Automotive Museum.jpg
- File:4 Mullin 011 opendoor dark.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Probably not own work. Needs OTRS permission from photographer and architect. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Wikipedia apparently can't handle the SVG. And I can't change it/reupload it as PNG. Thomas Veil (talk) 15:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- Comment: The SVG contains errors. Why not try to edit or optimise using standard SVG elements? --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SVG w/ errors Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Logo taken from another project ("Flat Earth Wiki)" - (?), according to source given - Copyright status unknown. - Fma12 (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: two different uploaders, two different licenses. real source unclear Com:PCP Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Not own work, the logo is still in use by the American Humanist Assoc. and it's above the TOO from my pov. - Fma12 (talk) 15:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Simple shapes Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 10:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
File:2014-08-27 15 46 30 Sign describing the Mute Swan at the Hildick-Smith Dock at Wargo Pond in the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, New Jersey.JPG
[edit]
No FoP in UK for 2D work. Yann (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Its an informational sign, not a work of art. Famartin (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Doesn't matter. Photograph of swan is (c) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- According to what?Famartin (talk) 10:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite the uploader stated permission could be found on the Rup-O-Rekha website, the copyright © symbol is visible at bottom of website (see here). Therefore an OTRS ticket is needed. - Fma12 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear description (Barricades are used during riots or civil wars in towns ; Where is the level crossing ?) ; unknown location ; generic file name ; no use ; No encyclopedic value Civa (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Modern scuplture (details of decoration), is not covered by FoP in Russia, clearly not DM since it is in the name of the photo. Ymblanter (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Something I do not understand. Where there is a sculpture? It is a living woman, a real live person, please see the photo at full size. What is DM? Please do not use incomprehensible abbreviations. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- DM is de minimis; sculptures are street lights.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is indeed surprising for me. In general, lanterns on streets are utilitarian objects. Probably they will fall into "urban development" as of Art.1276. --A.Savin 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure there should be a sculptor.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Rather a designer than a sculptor. --A.Savin 20:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure there should be a sculptor.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that deciphered the DM. I thought did you mean Depeche Mode, my photo violates copyright of this group. In general, I appreciate your sense of humor, I liked your joke. It is a pity that today is not April 1st, so your joke is inappropriate. Unfortunately. Seriously, your judgment is very unusual. Street lanterns traditionally belong to the architectural elements and utilitarian objects. Why did you decide that the street lights is sculpture? How can you prove it? Where did you get such information? Please give me a prooflink. Category file Street lights belongs to the category Street furniture, that is, utilitarian things. If you want to correct and put in the category Sculpture, undo your edit. I'm afraid would be so. These street lights - is a subject of industrial design. Like so many others. They are manufactured in large quantities and industrial method. Objects of industrial design not protected by copyright, is not it? Please tell me whether there are precedents in the Commons? Similar cases - with lights, street lighting, street objects or something similar? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, you have to prove that these lanterns are not copyrighted, in fact, that they do not form artwork separate from the bridge. It would be easy enough to find the list of people who own the copyright for the bridge, and see whether there is a scupltor there. If you fail to demonstrate this, I think the photo should be deleted out of the precautionary principle.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Absurd. I do not know at least one case, to the Russian street lights were protected copyright. I do not know at least one case, to the street lights called sculpture. This nomination is a personal revenge and persecution for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. You do not like the nomination, you do not like arguments, you do not like the result. And now you take revenge. You are pursuing me and administrator who summed up. Unworthy behavior, you can not be an administrator, you are dangerous to other users. I ask everyone to pay attention to the request Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ymblanter. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is an ad hominem argument. Please address the issue rather than the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is, essentially you have nothing argue. Perfectly. Then I will continue to break your request. One of the coauthors of this bridge is Zurab Tsereteli [8]. But it is not only a sculptor, he is a very famous artist, painter and designer. This is a common thing when known artists create designs and projects for industrial production of things. That is, streetlights sketches, designs and drawings by Tsereteli are copyright protected. But these things have items of industrial production and utilitarian things. I read an article about sculpture in the Great Russian Encyclopedia. There are no examples to street lights were kind of sculpture. This is a fantastic invention. And in conclusion. You refer to the precautionary principle, but is written in the rule that there must be justification (“significant doubt”). Where are they? You can give at least one link of proof? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid is Tsereteli is listed as a sculptor, this is the end of the story, since the individual design is copyrighted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- More than 200 of the same street lights clearly not handmade does not look like individual design. You have not proved that the street lights is sculpture. Or is it that makes Zurab Tsereteli - it is sculpture? His paintings are also a sculpture, I understand you correctly? Thanks. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, you did not understand me correctly. It is your responsibility to prove and to convince the closing administrator that this is mass-design which is not protected by author rights. If you can not, the photo must be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- OK, I will not argue. Maybe you are right. Perhaps this is an interesting experiment, perhaps, the results can be applied to many other files. Thank you for an interesting idea. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, you did not understand me correctly. It is your responsibility to prove and to convince the closing administrator that this is mass-design which is not protected by author rights. If you can not, the photo must be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) I would avoid cherry-picking a Wikipedia article to make a point. Zurab Tsereteli is also listed as an architect and the bridge is not an art installation, it is a work of architecture.
- Tsereteli is not mentioned as an architect for Patriarshy Bridge, either in the article about the bridge, nor the article about him. Presumably he is not a notable contributor for the construction. --Fæ (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tsereteli is primarily famous (or rather infamous) as a sculptor, and the Russian Wikipedia article may be incomplete. For me, this is not convincing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- It does not matter. Copyright effective for artworks regardless of what the author's profession. If he is a janitor, or if it is a sculptor - equivalent. The only question before us is the work of art or not? If yes - photos should be deleted. If not, the photo should be kept. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 21:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tsereteli is primarily famous (or rather infamous) as a sculptor, and the Russian Wikipedia article may be incomplete. For me, this is not convincing.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- More than 200 of the same street lights clearly not handmade does not look like individual design. You have not proved that the street lights is sculpture. Or is it that makes Zurab Tsereteli - it is sculpture? His paintings are also a sculpture, I understand you correctly? Thanks. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 17:13, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am afraid is Tsereteli is listed as a sculptor, this is the end of the story, since the individual design is copyrighted.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- That is, essentially you have nothing argue. Perfectly. Then I will continue to break your request. One of the coauthors of this bridge is Zurab Tsereteli [8]. But it is not only a sculptor, he is a very famous artist, painter and designer. This is a common thing when known artists create designs and projects for industrial production of things. That is, streetlights sketches, designs and drawings by Tsereteli are copyright protected. But these things have items of industrial production and utilitarian things. I read an article about sculpture in the Great Russian Encyclopedia. There are no examples to street lights were kind of sculpture. This is a fantastic invention. And in conclusion. You refer to the precautionary principle, but is written in the rule that there must be justification (“significant doubt”). Where are they? You can give at least one link of proof? --Andrey Korzun (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is an ad hominem argument. Please address the issue rather than the user.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Absurd. I do not know at least one case, to the Russian street lights were protected copyright. I do not know at least one case, to the street lights called sculpture. This nomination is a personal revenge and persecution for Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Portraits by Mikhail Nesterov. You do not like the nomination, you do not like arguments, you do not like the result. And now you take revenge. You are pursuing me and administrator who summed up. Unworthy behavior, you can not be an administrator, you are dangerous to other users. I ask everyone to pay attention to the request Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ymblanter. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, you have to prove that these lanterns are not copyrighted, in fact, that they do not form artwork separate from the bridge. It would be easy enough to find the list of people who own the copyright for the bridge, and see whether there is a scupltor there. If you fail to demonstrate this, I think the photo should be deleted out of the precautionary principle.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- This is indeed surprising for me. In general, lanterns on streets are utilitarian objects. Probably they will fall into "urban development" as of Art.1276. --A.Savin 20:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- DM is de minimis; sculptures are street lights.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep No artwork relevant, including light works. Worrying DR.
- Expanding slightly - Patriarshy Bridge was built in 2004 by the architect Mikhail Posokhin (junior). The railings and street lights are a deliberately traditional design, in particular the double lamp feature. The features are mass produced with no segment of the bridge different from any other. This fits within the "works of architecture" and "urban development" of Article 1276, refer to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Russia. --Fæ (talk) 07:50, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Focus on street furnitures aka urban design. -- Christian Ferrer 15:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Mass produced street furniture = utilitarian = no (c) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Derivative of a copyrighted work. Whereas the envelope is free, the painting makes it a copyright violation. Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it is - a derivative work. But freed because {{PD-RU-exempt}}. I think it looks like a precedent Commons:Deletion requests/File:Stamps of Russia 2012 No 1559-61 Mascots 2014 Winter Olympics.jpg. In the souvenir sheet shows the three mascot of the Sochi Olympics. They are protected by copyright in the same way as on the envelope reproduction of the painting by Deineka. Three times nominated for deletion, but three times he kept. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- The USSR government did not own copyright to Deineka painting.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and what of it? The Russian government also did not own copyright to mascot of the Sochi Olympics. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I believe it did, but if it did not it should be deleted as well. If I extend your argumentation, you say if the Russian post prints an envelope with a painting of Roy Liechtenstein it becomes PD. No, it does not. Liechtenstein's heirs will go to the court and easily win the case.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and what of it? The Russian government also did not own copyright to mascot of the Sochi Olympics. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- The USSR government did not own copyright to Deineka painting.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
{{vd}}The stamps shown at File:Stamps of Russia 2012 No 1559-61 Mascots 2014 Winter Olympics.jpg are not a direct comparison, as the artwork is contained in 3 removable stamps to be reused. Consequently the "souvenir sheet" artwork is covered by {{PD-RU-exempt}} as they are all stamps. In this case, the artwork is on a souvenir envelope rather than just the stamp mark. The painting is in copyright as the artist died in 1969, and as the painting is not specifically reproduced on a postage stamp, it is not clear that {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies, and we must default to the Precautionary Principle. --Fæ (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- Keep Change to keep based on the prior case studies of DRs listed below. Nice work done for establishing a convincing precedent. --Fæ (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- This postal envelope and stamp is a single whole. It was printed together, this can not be separate things. "Signs of postal payment" under Russian law is postage stamps, postal envelopes, postal cards, postmark. All of this is exempt {{PD-RU-exempt}}. However, I realize that it's probably not an easy case. Therefore, I ask users Michael Romanov, Dmitry Ivanov, Leonid Dzhepko who understand the philately, express your opinion. Reproductions of modern paintings often appear on Russian stamps and envelopes, so this case can be substantial precedent. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 07:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Andrey. Yes, you are right in saying that it's not an easy case. While {{PD-RU-exempt}} policy is applicable to images of Russian stamps, it's doubtful that reproduction of modern paintings on envelopes could be covered by the same exemption. If you want to keep an image of the stamp with cancellation, just crop it from the File:USSR EWCS №33 Union of Artists congress sp.cancellation.jpg and apply {{PD-RU-exempt}}. This is what I would do to be on the safe side. Cheers, --Michael Romanov (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep
- 1. Stamped envelopes (postal stationery envelopes, маркированные конверты) are considered as postage signs (знаки почтовой оплаты) in Russia.
- Under Article 1259.6 of Part IV of the Civil Code (No. 230-FZ) of the Russian Federation dated December 18, 2006, "official symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, banknotes, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations" are not copyrighted. Under Article 2 of Federal Law No. 176-FZ of the Russian Federation On Postal Service dated July 17, 1999, official signs of postage include "postage stamps and other signs put on mail and evidencing that postage has been paid".
- Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations (Положение о знаках почтовой оплаты и специальных почтовых штемпелях, put into force 26 May 1994 with Order of Ministry of Communication of Russian Federation No 115) defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes (маркированные конверты) (bold by D.I.), and postal stationery cards as the postage signs.
- It means: stamped envelopes of Russia are in PD. If you use a stamped envelope as a whole (i.e. the exact reproduction of an envelope, with an imprinted stamp, the address/postal code form, and, yes, with a reproduction of a copyrighted work) you can publish the stamped envelope in Commons.
- 2. Publication of a copyrighted works as a part of a PD-work does not violate the copyright and does not transform a copyrighted work into a PD-work.
- If the postage signs Russia are in PD under a normative act, therefore exceptions to the PD-status of the postage signs have to be established by means of a normative act. But there are no exceptions to the PD-status of the stamps of Russia in normative acts.
- The rights of a copyright holder are not trespassed when a copyrighted work is published as a part of a PD-work, they are regulated by agreement between a copyright holder and the postal authorities: a copyright holder can prohibit the publication of a copyrighted work as a part of a PD-work or can permit to publish a copyrighted work as a part of a PD-work. The Russian Post can come to an agreement with the heirs of Roy Liechtenstein and get authorization to publish his painting on an envelope. It does not turn this painting into a PD-artwork: you cannot reproduce the painting without an envelope. But, if you want to reproduce Liechtenstein's work (for example, you wrote a book about pop-art and you need illustrations for it) you have to strike a bargain with Roy’s heirs and (on some terms ;-) ) you will get the authorization to a publication (which authorization will not turn a work by Liechtenstein into a PD-work, though you will publish a copyrighted work).
- 3. See also:
- — Commons:Deletion requests/File:75th Anniversary, the October Revolution Locomotive Works, Luhansk 1971.jpg;
- — Commons:Deletion requests/File:1981. Старты надежд. ХМК 15037.jpeg;
- — Commons:Deletion requests/File:1984 Anvelt postcard.jpg;
- — Commons:Deletion requests/File:1986. Герой Советского Союза Иван Данилович Черняховский. ХМК.jpg
- — Commons:Deletion requests/File:1C PSE Russia 2008.jpg.
- Dmitry Ivanov (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC).
- Comprehensive information, I find it hard to add anything substantially. It remains only to thank the user Dmitry Ivanov for the excellent research. Two small additions. During Soviet times, "postage signs" had the same meaning as in the modern Russian legislation. And in terms of legal relationships, it does not matter, a reproduction of a previously created painting is placed on the envelope or the artist created specially for the drawing of the envelope. The Ministry of Communications is equally concludes contracts with the artist or copyright holder. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Thanks to Dmitry Ivanov we have comprehensive proof that {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies. Thank you very much for the detailed work!! Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. No evidence to support the claim that this undated photograph is in public domain via {{PD-Old}} as the author is (as indicated) en:Transportes Aéreos Bandeirantes (TABA), an Brazilian airline founded in 1945 (ceased operations in 1950) and which had this aircraft ("PP-BLB") in operation only in 1948–1949, failing also {{PD-Brazil-media}} (70 years disclosure). The aircraft was damaged beyond repair in an accident in 09.1949. Copyrighted (without further details) till the end of 2019. Gunnex (talk) 17:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No COM:FOP#France. According to French law, it is not allowed to publish picture whose the main subject is an original creation until 70 years after the death of its author. Unless prior authorization by the author or his heirs. Civa (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Cette photographie était incluse dans une série consacrée à des vues de la citadelle de Villefranche. En prenant une oeuvre en premier plan je ne pensais pas enfreindre un droit d'auteur. Mais si vous jugez que c'est le cas vous pouvez bien sûr supprimer la photo. Cordialement --Broenberr (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Broenberr: Bonjour. Je ne suis pas admin et donc je n'ai (heureusement) pas les droits pour supprimer des photos. De ce que j'en sais, pour être conservée, l'oeuvre "récente" (c'est-à-dire auteur mort depuis 70 ans au moins) doit être un élément secondaire ou annexe dans la photo. C'est alors un cas de De minimis. Quelle loi stupide! Mais il faut la respecter pour que wikipedia ne soit pas accusé de violer les droits de propriété. --Civa (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No other way. The sculputre is the main focus of the photo and no information about the age of the sculpture is given. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Iguape regarding official symbols
[edit]Unclear copyright status. Claim that these official symbols (coat of arms / brasão) of Brazilian municipality pt:Iguape were published or commissioned by a Brazilian government prior to 1983 ({{PD-BrazilGov}}) is not supported, as per file info and related ptwiki-entry pt:Brasão de Iguape the coat of arms was adopted only in 1992 by municipal law "LEI Nº 1.278/92" (full text available). Taken (as indicated) somewhere from official site http://www.iguape.sp.gov.br (Copyright © 2011 - Prefeitura Municipal de Iguape). All coats of arms and flags of Brazilian municipalities are established by municipal law. Generally for most of the Brazilian coats of arms and flags: unlikely also that these symbols were digitized in there present form prior to 1983 (when "Internet" was available only for a few institutions, TCP/IP was standardized in 1982). Their creation date could be quite recent, maybe not even by an employee of the Brazilian government.
Gunnex (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Better source with date of creation needed. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
No proof that the uploader is the photographer Renaud Khanh or that he had his authorization. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I eventually realized that Renaud Khanh seems to be linked with Aymeric Chauprade since the latter uses a photo of him taken by Khanh on his own website. Just a curious thing : the uploader of the file is called "RealpolitikCommons" and his profile presents him as a simple guy who just knows things about international relations... and Chauprade's site is called "Realpolitik.tv". Two possibilities : 1) "RealpolitikCommons" is just a reader/sympathizer of "Realpolitik.tv" and he thought he could upload Chauprade's photo (or had the authorization but we don't have the proof) ; 2) "RealpolitikCommons" is linked to "Realpolitik.tv", but in this case it's not transparent and honest enough ! In both cases, there's something sleazy ! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment see also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Aymeric Chauprade.jpg. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Permission of the photographer through OTRS is needed. BrightRaven (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KarenMenuhin (talk · contribs)
[edit]This gallery has images from several kinds of cameras and seems to be a promotional/self-promotional series of uploads as they are all of someone named "Menuhin" as is the uploader. Commons is not a personal photo album, these images would be more suited in size, quality and content for a social media site like Facebook.
- File:Krov and Ann Menuhin with baby Aaron.JPG
- File:Krov Menuhin, Nicolas Hulot.JPG
- File:Krov Menuhin, beach of Mozambique 2010.JPG
- File:Krov Menuhin with Amazon dolphin.JPG
- File:Krov Menuhin Maule Amphibian, Alaska.jpg
- File:Krov, Aaron, Arthur, Vera Menuhin.JPG
- File:Sulawesi april 2006.JPG
- File:Krov Menuhin.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment A message was left on my talk page about this; user is new. Please retain all images for at least another 10 days, some pictures are going to go through OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Info Please, consider en:Draft:Krov Menuhin. --Achim (talk) 17:28, 10 July 2015 (UTC)- Comment Unless OTRS has been received, these images are likly copyvios. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, if OTRS-permission arrives, then the files are restored. Taivo (talk) 08:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)