Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/07/11
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Copyright work tagged as own work, not suitable for Wikimedia Commons. War wizard90 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I actually have now tagged this for speedy deletion, wasn't sure how to do that on commons as I don't edit here often. War wizard90 (talk) 04:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyrights violation - Commons:Licensing §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete This file is a duplicate of another already on Commons, just improperly attributed and with the colours backward. K7L (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Upload by sock, out of scope. Yann (talk) 08:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:File:20150704 Radar.webm
فيس بوك
Deleted: . Krd 12:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale (no evidence of when and where the first publication took place). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, Withdrawn, taken before 1946. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale (no evidence of when and where the first publication took place). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, withdrawn, taken before 1946. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Created a duplication of another file by mistake. Selsharbaty (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy closed: Tagged as Duplicated. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
rvftucdfff 103.51.153.118 17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
555545L;5HUHJJJHKK 109.199.129.78 17:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
more categories for Gohlis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enzian44 (talk • contribs) 2015-07-10T01:06:05 (UTC)
Deleted: empty cat. JuTa 01:38, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Just no need Lindaliddy (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: speedy kept - no proper reason given for deletion Denniss (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nakhichevan theatre old.jpg
Files uploaded by Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs)
[edit]License at source is CC-BY-NC.
Yann (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. See User talk:Yann#Speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 10:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Team Giant Shimano
Unused personal vanity photo. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Esmeralda Guedez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. We aren't portfolio.
- File:189675 161648933889794 1328693 n1.jpg
- File:163856 148241605230527 4185467 no.jpg
- File:40915 1529696038262 8103822 ne.jpg
- File:40476 112116015509753 2807670 nd.jpg
- File:44763 112117068842981 2849864 npl.jpg
- File:44763 112117088842979 2647250 ne.jpg
- File:40476 112116022176419 6752581 ns.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
not used personal image -- Christian Ferrer 08:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
who is this person? out of scope IMO -- Christian Ferrer 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty Page
Deleted / Empty.--Fanghong (talk) 05:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
type error of mine Uleli (talk) 15:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Empty.--Fanghong (talk) 05:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I want this removed. Dragonflyzed (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I want this removed. Dragonflyzed (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
unused private image, out of scope Achim (talk) 11:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 05:55, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SujapOfficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SujapOfficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
uploaded in error by myself, User:Rocknrollmancer, from Flickr source, different location is depicted, hence image title is incorrect Rocknrollmancer (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Possibly copied from other website & low resolution Adilswati (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copied from https://www.flickr.com/photos/usmanshafqat/14550332581/. Yann (talk) 11:10, 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)
Files in Category:Moscow Metro
[edit]Derivative work of Soviet non-architectural artwork. Not covered by COM:FOP#Russia.
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-02.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-03.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-04.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-05.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-06.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-07.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroBelorusskaja-08.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroKijewskaja-03.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroKijewskaja-04.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroKijewskaja-05.JPG
- File:MoskauMetroProspektMira-02.JPG
A.Savin 07:13, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Moscow Metro
[edit]Copyrighted stuff derivatives. No evidence of permission.
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Day of mass transit worker. (14985433284).jpg
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Repair works (15603503641).jpg
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Stuff hiring. (14986022243).jpg
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Subway police departament invites policemans. (15582493096).jpg
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Train drivers hiring. (14985431674).jpg
- File:Moscow metro poster 2014. Troyka cards. (15420167157).jpg
- File:Moscow metro special tickets 2013 (14321758529).jpg
A.Savin 10:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: -- Geagea (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all since 10.7. JuTa 04:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ramon.Cava (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Praça Dom Pedro II 1.jpg
- File:Monumento das Três Raças.jpg
- File:Panorâmica 1.JPG
- File:Vista da Cidade.jpg
- File:Vista da cidade com a ermida ao fundo coberta pelo nevoeiro.JPG
- File:Vista da Cidade 1.JPG
- File:Vista Aérea de Bom Conselho - PE.jpg
- File:Praça Dom Pedro II.jpg
Yann (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete, copyright violations. First file is from https://www.flickr.com/photos/consuelolima/5602235966, second from http://robertoalmeidacsc.blogspot.de/2014/12/beleza-do-interior.html, and so on. Nominated the rest of this guys upload for speedy deletion, also the file with EXIF data or large size are stolen. --Martin H. (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per num. -- Geagea (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused fictitious flag; out of COM:SCOPE as without any foreseeable educational use. Keφr (keep talk here) 16:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by La venta del encuentro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be free.
- File:Unnamed (37).jpg
- File:Unnamed (36).jpg from http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jROLUdcipbo/Sh8cZNR2Y2I/AAAAAAAAAAw/q7iHdqZCXOQ/s1600/LA+VENTA+DEL+ENCUENTRO+(prensa).jpg
- File:Unnamed (33).jpg
- File:Unnamed (32).jpg
- File:Unnamed (34).jpg
Yann (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per num. -- Geagea (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Video ist beim hochladen gedreht worden und dies kann auch mit dem rotate-bot nicht korrigiert werden (mandatory)
Deleted: Done by Yann Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This is my own personal photo. It is of myself and my wife and was taken at our daughter's 16th birthday. I would like this image removed from Wikimedia. Thank you. Ormr2014 (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by INeverCry Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for deletion request -MustafaCeceliFan (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC) 1422883401-ceceli-1 wiki.jpg
Deleted: Done by Túrelio Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, unclear subject, not usefull IMHO. C messier (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope, IMO too. Josve05a (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violations. Screenshot of unfree video. Shvann (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
copyvio from this website Mess (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lizbethmaldona (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, user with bad history, unlikely to be free.
Yann (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lizbethmaldona (talk · contribs)
[edit]out of scope — unused personal images
Daphne Lantier 01:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Google maps are copyrighted. Derivative work of copyrighted content. C messier (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Not clear why it is in scope. Jonund (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:28, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Small file, no EXIF. It's not similar to university building. Brateevsky {talk} 17:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like official photo shoot for the club. I doubt it's own work. Dudek1337 (talk) 19:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
unused logo of unknown company (advertisement)/no educational use Sebari (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation [1] Austriantraveler (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be the work of the uploader, image appeared on http://forum.scramble.nl/viewtopic.php?p=640527 in May 2013 probably the source of the image MilborneOne (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 03:41, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete +
Info = uploader trying to evade DR in reuploading the same file via File:Tigres UANL Logotipo.png. Gunnex (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Both logos are coyrighted by the UANL football club. Fma12 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
what are the source of the both images of this photomontage, the art work is maybe copyrighted. And if the art work is not yet published, it is no quite notable and out of scope IMO. -- Christian Ferrer 08:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
not convinced by the source and the author, Natasha could not paint and took the photo at the same time. Also out of scope IMO because the artist is not quite notable. -- Christian Ferrer 08:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by White beard pirates (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, poor quality, not used, user blocked for puppetry, out of scope.
Yann (talk) 08:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO. No exif. Other pictures uploaded by this user are COM:COPYVIO. Hang9417 (talk) 09:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Empty, only one (blocked) contributor (Flow92) mr.choppers (talk)-en- 18:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Ymblanter Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The listed commons license on the given source page may not be the actual source, so it is not clear that it can be freely used. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by INeverCry Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:32, 18 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. The author was born in 1955 Civa (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
if the exifs are correct, we need have a permission from Peter Banks Photography (http://peterbanksphotoworks.co.uk/) or at least a confirmation via ORTS that the uploader Nat Powers is in reality Peter Banks Photography and can claim about own work. -- Christian Ferrer 08:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- See also:
- File:Nat Powers - Park Winter Concept.jpg
- File:Nat Powers - Snow & Smoke Concept.jpg
- File:Nat Powers - Winter Concept, UK.jpg
-- Christian Ferrer 08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- - Nat Powers here, I don't see what the big deal is about. I can get some sort of approval from Peter Banks, as he is my head photographer. I uploaded this jointly between myself and him, therefore have the ownership and permission to do so.
Deleted: as above. Please send a permission through COM:OTRS. Yann (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Corresponding article deleted, unclear license. Tom-L (talk) 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:17, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
File failure replaced by this - File:Cenup Demiryollari (Paricolare) Turchia (1933-1948).jpg visible here Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I would like delete it. Thanks a lot.
Kept: We don't delete talk pages. Yann (talk) 10:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Possibly copied image and low resolution Adilswati (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No evidence of copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Low quality (due to extreme deformation) duplicate of File:Црква брвнара у Брзану 04.jpg C messier (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The depicted artwork is likely copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 11:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
dubious own work /St1995 11:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Too small, propably a duplicate of an existing file in Commons, as two other of the uploads of the same user. C messier (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Right: File:Harold Pratt House 004.JPG. Yann (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Too small, propably a duplicate of an existing file in Commons, as two other of the uploads of the same user. C messier (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio: http://www.toutsimcities.com/threads/view/416500/page:4 Yann (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This picture is copyrighted by the company Uravu Eco Links based in Thrikkaipetta, Kerala, Southern India (see the watermark on the right corner © Uravu Eco Links). We don’t agree to display it on Wikimedia and we don’t know the person who uploads it. Please do the necessary to remove it as soon as possible. Thank you in advance for your help and collaboration. Vincent Weil Intern at Uravu Eco Links 117.214.30.148 12:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio per nom Pitke (talk) 11:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Atomium (Jun 2009).jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")
[edit]The Atomium is © SABAM on behalf of Waterkeyn's heirs. The photo violates COM:FOP#Belgium 67.87.46.39 19:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Atomium is © Waterkeyn's heirs. SABAM only helps the heirs enforcing the copyright. Delete as the Atomium is copyrighted. --Stefan4 (talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 04:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Atomium (2014-08-26).jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")
[edit]Hola. El motivo es porque no sabía esto: y no quiero incurrir en una falta. Chicmusic (talk) 08:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Uploader request; see Category:Atomium for details on the sculptures copyright. --Martin H. (talk) 13:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
File:Illustration of parts of Atomium.jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")
[edit]COM:FOP#Belgium. In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belgium. 84.61.168.23 19:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
- You should not necessarily just consider the copyright laws of Belgium. --Agamemnus (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
--- Deleted: I read the discussion on VP. According to OUR rules, the photo has to be free in Belgium as well. Currently the Atomium is off limits for Commons. Change the rules and I am happy to restore ALL Atomium pictures we deleted. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
File:Atomium (image de synthèse).jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")
[edit]There is no freedom of panorama in Belgium, this image is therefore a copyright infringement (as was the case in other DRs of images with the same filename listed above). ColonialGrid (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- it's a draw, an image made from scratch, are you really sure this is supposed to be deleted? Any representation of the atomium had to follow the same way in this case--Madelgarius (talk) 17:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- The image looks like a photo rather than a drawing, but either way the image is a derivative work of a copyrighted art piece, and thus a copyright infringement. Please look through the DRs above and this discussion about the copyright status of images of The Atomium. ColonialGrid (talk) 18:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- so you will have to delete all the pictures around the atomium from all the wikipedias... I agree--Madelgarius (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
-
this one -
this one -
and even this one
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_(Turchia).png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
![76 File:Illustration of parts of Atomium.jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")](#File:Illustration_of_parts_of_Atomium.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")_2){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_в_1912.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-2015-07-11T16:20:00.000Z-File:WEP_Norway_banner_logo.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){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){kind=link}
_(Turchia).png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(Turchia).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Turchia_(1933-1948).jpg){kind=link}
_(Turchia).png){kind=link}
_(Turchia).png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg_(previously_under_filename_"File:Atomium.jpg")){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- So in the first Picture at Minimundus there's no copyright-violation. Because the modell is in a public entertainment park in Austria - so Austrian Law ist guilty, and not the Belgium. It's a permanent artwork in Austria, so it's possible to take and publish pictures, whenever you want. @ColonialGrid: Please inform about laws in different countries. --Austriantraveler (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- My picture was made from scratch, as the miniature from Austria... This do not botter the freedom of panorama, and if it's considered as a derivative work (despite the fact that i'm not doing "art" but simply trying to illustrate an article by a "simply picture") the one you are speaking about is also derivated from the atomium, no? --Madelgarius (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Commons requires all images to be PD or properly licenced with a free licence is both the country of creation and the US. The miniature replica is ok because the image is not a copyright infringement in the country it was created in (Austria) and the US (DR discussions here and here). The road sign states that it is acceptable as it is part of Belgium law, and the silhouette has been subjected to a DR and kept. The primary difference between the replica and your image is country of creation: the replica was made in Austria which does have FOP, your image was likely created in Belgium (where you are located) which doesn't. ColonialGrid (talk) 06:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- If I was an Austrian it would be ok? What if I told you that the model for making my 3D picture was the replica from Minimundus and not effectively the Atomium? I insist again this is a simply picture (no details at all, just nine spheres in a cube, some virtual spotlights, 2-3 stars and a bit of photographic grain. Don't try to rebuild the Atomium with this poor illustration ;-). --Madelgarius (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- If you were an Austrian in Austria (just as an example, there are many other nations with FOP where it would be ok) it would be ok. It doesn't matter what you based the image on, the fact is that it is clearly a derivative work of a copyrighted art work in Belgium, where you are and where the copyright of the image you created rests, it is a violation of copyright. Your situation is very similar to that of the Australian Aboriginal Flag and Australia's very low threshold of originality requirements. ColonialGrid (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- So anybody with FOP in his contry could reupload my picture after his deletion? Can you do this? --Madelgarius (talk) 10:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- No, the country of upload isn't what's important here, it's the country of creation that matters. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- we will say you did it ;-) You can delete, we will wait until european sagacity could make a difference between facebook and wikimedia projects. We will wait until Belgium will do so. Thank you for your patient replies (still not convinced about all you said (as you do probably)) enough wasted time here ;-)--Madelgarius (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, no. According to the Berne Convention, the country of first publication is what matters. Until now, that's the rule we apply here. Although we can't allow a picture of the original in Belgium, I think we could allow this. The country of first publication is the USA in this case. I don't think there could be a copyright of the design. As explained here, it is the shape of a unit cell of an iron crystal. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- My picture was made from scratch, as the miniature from Austria... This do not botter the freedom of panorama, and if it's considered as a derivative work (despite the fact that i'm not doing "art" but simply trying to illustrate an article by a "simply picture") the one you are speaking about is also derivated from the atomium, no? --Madelgarius (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- So in the first Picture at Minimundus there's no copyright-violation. Because the modell is in a public entertainment park in Austria - so Austrian Law ist guilty, and not the Belgium. It's a permanent artwork in Austria, so it's possible to take and publish pictures, whenever you want. @ColonialGrid: Please inform about laws in different countries. --Austriantraveler (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: I think we could allow this. The country of first publication is the USA in this case. I don't think there could be a copyright of the design. As explained here, it is the shape of a unit cell of an iron crystal. Yann (talk) 10:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Atomium (image de synthèse).jpg (previously under filename "File:Atomium.jpg")
[edit]
This does not respect one condition of the Belgian FOP: "provided that the reproduction or the communication of the work is as it is found there". BrightRaven (talk) 08:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- @BrightRaven: L'image avait été conservée quant il n'y avait pas de liberté de panorama en Belgique (cf. supra) et maintenant qu'il y en a une, elle doit être supprimée parce qu'elle enfreindrait la FOP. Croquignolesque, non? --Madelgarius (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Je pense qu'elle n'aurait pas due être conservée quand il n'y avait pas de FOP en Belgique : c'est une œuvre dérivée (ce n'est pas une modélisation d'un cristal de fer, mais bien de l'Atomium, car un cristal de fer n'a pas de pavillon d'accueil à sa base ou de piliers de soutien) et l'autorisation de l'auteur de l’œuvre d'origine était nécessaire. La FOP belge actuelle interdit clairement ce type d’œuvre dérivée : elle ne permet que de montrer l’œuvre dans son contexte "public", pas d'en faire des reproductions avec d'autres média. BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
- Belote rebelote et 10 de der. Les trois vignettes ci-dessus doivent également être supprimées (y compris la réplique de l'Atomium à Minimundus) en tant que travaux dérivés de l'atomium... Ou alors la pauvre image de synthèse qui représente la réplique de l'atomium de minimundus et qui a illustré l'article sur WP pendant plus d'un an sous cette appellation peut-être conservée pour ce qu'elle est (puis en souvenir du message qu'elle portait) --Madelgarius (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- La différence, c'est qu'on peut raisonnablement supposer que les copies présentes à Minimundus ou ailleurs ont été faites avec l'accord de l'architecte de l'Atomium. Sans cet accord, toute copie d'une œuvre est interdite (c'est l'essence même du copyright). BrightRaven (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Ravi d'en revenir à l'essence, à l'esprit, je vous y suit entièrement. Cette pauvre image de synthèse n'est pas un oeuvre dérivée parce que ce n'est pas une oeuvre du tout c'est juste une petite illustration comme il en fut de la Tour Eiffel, depuis le début et qu'on ne peut empêcher que des bâtiments symboliques comme la Tour Eiffel, le Golden Gate, Big Ben et... l'Atomium soient repris dans des illustrations. Si c'est à des fins non commerciales, informatives, patrimoniales (éléments qui constituent des exceptions au droit d'auteur en Belgique), je n'y vois pas d'inconvénient. Mais j'entends bien qu'il est important pour vous d'obtenir la suppression de cette image pour célébrer sans doute la FOP en Belgique en en ayant une lecture rigoriste. Le monde n'en sera que meilleur si les lois et règlement sont correctement appliqués. Ne pensez vous pas que le discernement doit rester cependant de mise partant du fait que c'est celui-là même qui nous permet de créer des réglementations. Un débat a déjà été tenu par rapport à cette image et elle a été conservée. Aujourd'hui vous réouvrez ce débat, parce que vous n'étiez pas d'accord avec la première discussion... C'est le moment de faire usage de votre discernement. --Madelgarius (talk) 10:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
- Belote rebelote et 10 de der. Les trois vignettes ci-dessus doivent également être supprimées (y compris la réplique de l'Atomium à Minimundus) en tant que travaux dérivés de l'atomium... Ou alors la pauvre image de synthèse qui représente la réplique de l'atomium de minimundus et qui a illustré l'article sur WP pendant plus d'un an sous cette appellation peut-être conservée pour ce qu'elle est (puis en souvenir du message qu'elle portait) --Madelgarius (talk) 12:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
- Je pense qu'elle n'aurait pas due être conservée quand il n'y avait pas de FOP en Belgique : c'est une œuvre dérivée (ce n'est pas une modélisation d'un cristal de fer, mais bien de l'Atomium, car un cristal de fer n'a pas de pavillon d'accueil à sa base ou de piliers de soutien) et l'autorisation de l'auteur de l’œuvre d'origine était nécessaire. La FOP belge actuelle interdit clairement ce type d’œuvre dérivée : elle ne permet que de montrer l’œuvre dans son contexte "public", pas d'en faire des reproductions avec d'autres média. BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Kept: If somehow Belgian FOP does not allow derivative work, then we will need to have a closer look at this in general, because that would make Belgian FOP incompatible with our license requirements. --Jcb (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by SVG (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alkinone Syntheses.png) ↔ User: Perhelion (Commons: = crap?) 18:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like a higher-quality replacement. I don't usually strongly support high-quality-png -> svg as deletion, but this png does not have high resolution (even though large layout size). DMacks (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 11:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio, fake license tag. --benlisquareTalk•Contribs 21:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Obviously. Yann (talk) 10:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non-free photo of screen displaying copyrighted video stream ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is a logo of the multinational law firm Norton Rose Fulbright, which has its headquarters in London. This suggests that the logo of the firm is likely to be covered by UK copyright law, and therefore likely to be over the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom — and as such ought to be deleted for being unfree in its source country and therefore violating Commons:Licensing. odder (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 10:43, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
The previous discussion was not closed correctly by Yann. As the DR noted, the UK has a very low threshold of originality (refer to Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_Kingdom for more info). As such, this logo needs to be deleted upon that basis. cc. Odder 121.221.212.184 12:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment On IRC, Yann has called this DR "bullshit". He also defended his close in saying "this is juts (sic) plain simple text". He is obviously not aware of this DR and the quoted court cases which confirmed that simple text logos in the UK are still able to be copyrighted. Given this logo is even a little more complex than the Edge example, we should following the law and COM:PRP; not some misguided notion that Commons admins are able to declare whether a logo is free or not; which has great potential to harm re-users. 121.221.212.184 16:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the EDGE example, but this is not more complex than that. This is simple plain text in a standard font, which the Edge logo is not. That's the point. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- It is, for it is not only text. One should also look at File:Northeast airlines uk logo.svg, which is also text and simple shapes and is copyrighted. 121.221.212.184 16:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am well aware of the EDGE example, but this is not more complex than that. This is simple plain text in a standard font, which the Edge logo is not. That's the point. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Given the recent "bad blood" between Odder and Yann, may I please ask for the sake of nuerality ask that you both recuse yourself from this deletion request and let other users comment and handle it. Thank you. Josve05a (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I echo Josve05a's statement. We do not need a revert war on COM:DEL. Please leave the matter to the rest of us. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 19:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Would not be better to be decided by a Court (or at least an UK Laws expert)? The problem is the interpretation of the Laws from non-UK users
- The logo seems too simple for me; there are quite more complex UK logos than less than-like, upside character and decided to be kept. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Question Is there any other reason to keep this one on Commons except that it is maybe {{PD-textlogo}}? When I see similar uploads, I usually speedy delete them as "out of COM:SCOPE - promotional content". I fail to see any different situation here. --A.Savin 23:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
- Norton Rose Fulbright is the 10th biggest law firm in the world, and it's got articles on the English, French, Farsi and Arabic Wikipedias, so I'd say it's quite notable. odder (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept No more complicated than other logos in Category:Logos of companies of the United Kingdom as far as I can tell. -- とある白い猫 ちぃ？ 22:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by The Big Bad Wolfowitz as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Source plainly states the image is under copyright. "Photo (C) RMN-Grand Palais (musée Picasso de Paris) / Droits réservés." The claim that the copyright has expired because the photographer died before 1945 is unsupported by evidence, and since the photographer is anonymous the claim cannot be justified. Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- 'Keep'. The source website often writes "Droits réservés", even for public domain images, such as this 1908 photograph by an unknown or anonymous photographer. Article 7.3 of the Berne Convention mandates a minimum of 50 years of protection for anonymous works from the date it was "lawfully made available to the public", rather than 50 years after the death of its author. This image is therefore public domain. Coldcreation (talk) 02:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete You need two copyright tags: a United States copyright tag and a source country copyright tag.
- For the United States: The photograph was taken in 1908. If it was published before 1923, then it is in the public domain in the United States. However, we don't know whether it was published at that time. It could have been meant to be a private picture which remained unpublished for a long time. If the first publication was after 2002, then the copyright expires 120 years after the photograph was taken, i.e. in 2029. If the first publication was somewhere between 1923 and 2002, then it is more complex.
- For the source country: The source country is the country where the photograph was first published. Where was the photograph first published? Picasso was a residence of Spain and France, so it is possible that one of those countries was the country of first publication, although we can't be fully certain. In France, the copyright to an anonymous photograph expires 70 years after publication, or 70 years after creation if the photograph wasn't published within 70 years from creation. Here we have the problem from above that we don't know when the photograph was published. If it was published in (say) the 1950s or the 1960s, then it was published within 70 years from creation, giving copyright expiration 70 years after publication, and we are not there yet. In Spain, you use the 'French' rule if the photographer was still alive as of 7 December 1987. As this was taken quite a long time before 7 December 1987, it is very possible that the photographer died at some point before that date, and then the rules say that you should use the copyright term from the 1879 copyright law. The 1879 copyright law lists the copyright term as 80 years from the death of the photographer and does not mention any special terms for anonymous photographs, so it seems that the copyright to an anonymous photograph expires 80 years after the death of the anonymous photographer.
- User:Coldcreation: As you noted above, the terms given in the Berne Convention are minimum terms. Many countries use longer copyright terms than those required by the Berne Convention. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tag Anonymous-EU has been added to the image page. This should resolve the issue. Coldcreation (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- That does not solve the issue as there is no evidence that the conditions in the tag are satisfied. For example, the tag can't be used on any files where Spain is the source country. --Stefan4 (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- The tag Anonymous-EU has been added to the image page. This should resolve the issue. Coldcreation (talk) 10:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Stefan4 sums things up quite well. When the date and place of original publication can't be identified, it's very difficult, often virtually impossible, to verify a claim that a photo is in the public domain. Merely placing an unverifiable tage on the file page reporting what is no more than a hypothesis of possible circumstances making the image free quite plainly cannot satisfy our requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Anonymous-EU and PD-1923. The RMN claims a copyright on anything, even when it is complete bullshit. Yann (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bad quality (tiny object) Uli Elch (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: In use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bad quality is not a valid reason to delete the image. Keep and may some admin close this request? -- Milad A380 talk 10:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- 1) Bad quality is a valid reason to delete the image ("poor or mediocre quality"). See Commons:Deletion policy#Not educationally useful.
- 2) File is not in use anywhere.
- >>> Delete. --Uli Elch (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Pitke (talk) 13:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale for the source country and mathematically impossible US PD rationale (1933 > 1923). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale for the source country and mathematically impossible US PD rationale (1933 > 1923). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale for the source country or the US rationale (no evidence of first publication). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Colombia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Png versions of SVG files are valid; a wisdom from the jungle has it that forcing non-SVG to SVG conversion on WM projects would spark WW III. --Pitke (talk) 13:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason to remove PNG version of SVG file Pitke (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Non-free photo of screen displaying copyrighted video stream ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 22:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: derivative of copyrighted material Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Нарушение авторских прав Higimo (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no evidence that the file is freely licensed Ymblanter (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Bellow the COM:TOO? Amitie 10g (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I see this logo below the TOO. Fma12 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 18:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wikimaster0000 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, uncategorized images with unclear purpose (i.e. no educational purpose unless we find out what they depict). Google translate is not much help. Only uploads by user.
- File:Final Berlin 2.jpg
- File:Paso 7 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 5 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 6 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 4 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 2 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 1 Berlin.gif
- File:Paso 3 Berlincopy.gif
Sebari (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
self promotion Fixertool (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: personal photo. Misapplied on id.wiktionary. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 08:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
poor quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zwiadowca21 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: superseded by others in Category:Police automobiles in Baden-Württemberg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This logo is unsourced.
[edit]This logo (File:S.S.C. Napoli logo.svg) has not official sources (ANGELUS: Own work) and is reportedly trademarked (TM). --IM-yb (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep "Trademark" is not the same than "copyright". The Napoli logo is below the TOO in my opinion and was uploaded under a {{PD-textlogo}} license. About the original source There are many images on Google that could have been taken as reference to create the SVG file, p.e. the existing on club's official web, therefore a simple addition to the infobox indicating it should be enough. - Fma12 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as per User:Fma12. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Fair use (Fair use). Bellow the COM:TOO? Amitie 10g (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Below COM:TOO. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
More sculpture photos at Centennial Olympic Park
[edit]- File:Billy Payne Centennial Olympic Park.jpg
- File:Statue of Pierre de Coubertin and Olympic Rings.jpg
- File:Pierre-de-Coubertin-Atlanta.JPG
- File:Centennial Olympic Park Art.jpg
Sculptures in the United States do not have freedom of panorama, especially at Centennial Olympic Park (Atlanta, GA). See COM:FOP#United States. --George Ho (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree derivative works Pitke (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Le sculpteur Damaso Maestracci est décédé en décembre 1976 à Occhiatana (moins de 70 ans) PierreB (talk) 15:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree sculpture, no FoP in France Pitke (talk) 20:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Image was uploaded in order to pursue a fringe theory with no serious attempt to use the image for any other purpose. This image should be deleted because:
- The image was uploaded solely as part of a concerted attempt to force a 'Fringe Theory' into an article at Wikipedia.
- The parameters displayed on the photographed instrument do not accord with the expected values generally accepted by electrical engineering theory and practice.
- The Fringe Theory was extensively discussed (very extensively discussed) in the Wikipedia article [Power factor] (The extensive discussion is archived [here]). The concept being pursued was unanimously rejected by all participants (except the pusher).
- The image is not used in any Wiki space except the uploader's own user page. As a result of the discussion, the image is very unlikely to be accepted anywhere as illustrating the point being pursued.
DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:11, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of COM:SCOPE as fringe theory illustration Pitke (talk) 20:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Namensverwechselung. Ein neues Hochladen wird nach der Löschung empfohlen MEH Bergmann (talk) 21:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Namensverwechselung. Ein neues Hochladen wird nach der Löschung empfohlen
Kept: Renaming is a sufficient fix Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Shinjukusanchome-Sta-B5.JPGと重複（ファイル名の書き間違いによる） Nyao148 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Note to uploader: If you make a mistake in the file name, rather than uploading the same file again with a new file name, it would save yourself and other editors time and effort by simply requesting the file be renamed. Add {{rename|newname.ext|rationale number|reason=optional text reason}} to the file. (See Commons:File renaming.) --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected to the correct file. Sreejith K (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
New flickr account, most likely flickrwashing, no exif-data, the flickr image looks like a "re-photo" (photograph of a photograph). Josve05a (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious status, looks very much like Flickrwashing. Pitke (talk) 17:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Image is taken from https://www.facebook.com/SultanBahoo.SultanulFaqr/photos/a.1616164541949408.1073741854.1431769563722241/1616178915281304/?type=1&theater (Dated April 1) It was copied to Flickr (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133915684@N08/18621353135/) on June 9th and uploaded to Wikipedia (June 9th) Therefore the file should be deleted as it does not have an eligible license Gsingh (talk) 02:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS Ticket from 2013: 2013062010002201 Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This insignia contained an unauthorized modification - two shields at the center were deliberately altered. Please refer to https://brand.cornell.edu/web.php for more information. 75.80.48.131 07:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: probably just a hickup which makes it out of scope. two new logos uploaded today Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The party logo doesn't include the comma. The version taken from the party website, as Javier93h said in the summary, doesn't include it, and therefore it's not an official logo or image Sfs90 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
The party logo doesn't include the comma. The version taken from the party website, as Javier93h said in the summary, doesn't include it, and therefore it's not an official logo or image Sfs90 (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per above Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Video ist beim hochladen gedreht worden und dies kann auch mit dem rotate-bot nicht korrigiert werden (mandatory) namenlos.net (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Then rotate it in some other way instead. --Stefan4 (talk) 09:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Support Keine Möglichkeit des rotierens, Datei wird nach dem neu löschen in korrekter Ausrichtung neu hochgeladen namenlos.net (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per namenlos :-) Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 08:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a logo of the multinational law firm Clifford Chance, headquarted in London and formed in 1987 by merger of two London-based firms Clifford Turner and Coward Chance (and a few other subsequent mergers). With that in mind, the logo of the firm is likely to be covered by UK copyright law, and therefore likely to be over the threshold of originality in the United Kingdom — and as such ought to be deleted for being unfree in its source country and therefore violating Commons:Licensing. odder (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete While this would seem almost ridiculous to consider as protected, the UK TOO is extremely low, and these characters are not set in any kind of a 'standard' alignment such as is typically used for text. The existing precedents seem to indicate that a UK court would uphold protection of this logo, and as long as there is a significant doubt about that then we can't keep it. Revent (talk) 22:08, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just as a comment, the EDGE logo case would be good reading for anyone that wants to get involved in this, as well as the DR for that logo here. Revent (talk)
- Keep: The examples given at Commons:Threshold of originality#United Kingdom are much more complex than this logo. The first uses a very unusual font (as pointed out in the court decision - "The stretching of the font was combined with the distinctive slash and projection on the middle bar of the 'E'."), and the second uses both an unusual font and a set of colorful triangles. On the other hand, this logo is nothing more than two words in a very standard black font with nonstandard but straightforward spacing. Based on the EDGE logo court decision, I don't see any reason to think that this logo is above TOO. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 23:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Mr. Granger: The issue is that UK law does not reflect the 'threshold of originality' in the sense we typically use. The UK will allow a copyright claim based merely upon 'sweat of the brow' (see en:Sweat_of_the_brow#UK_copyright_law). The UK has a concept known as 'typographical copyright' that covers "the style, composition, layout and general appearance of a page". Even merely taking a old public domain work and reissuing it with a newly done typesetting is sufficient to create a valid copyright claim under UK law. In the case of this logo, the arrangement of the letters is, as you noted, non-standard. While it's plausible that this would not be protected by a court, I think that (as a UK work) there is sufficient doubt that the precautionary principle applies. Revent (talk) 20:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly not PD in the source country. James F. (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
KEEP - someone is going around deleting images like this. Hopefully the illustrative value of this image is clear. Well within scope. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 02:56, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - To summarize my comments below for anyone else that happens to view this conversation, this image was not meant as a response to any other discussion, image, or editor, nor does it reflect beliefs that I personally hold. This was an image I created and uploaded, and nominated for deletion so I could cast a keep vote. I linked to this page from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Earth Ocean Flag.png to gain participants but left a snarky comment and caused what you see below. None of that reflects the nature of the image or whether it belongs on Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 00:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as out of COM:SCOPE and block the uploader for trolling. This is a textbook example of COM:POINT. This made-up-on-the-spot flag has never found any significant real-world usage. Keφr (keep talk here) 05:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Ignoring the part of your comments not related to this image, that logic is faulty and inaccurate. This image illustrative of the "Confederate Swastika" concept which is very real and very present in the news. The concept is that the Confederate Flag represents (for good or bad) a lot of the same things that the Nazi flag represents. I created this specific image because I had gone looking for it for a specific use and could not find it, only lower quality approximations. It is a high-quality and unique image and well within scope. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 18:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- It didn't occur to me that anyone would somehow think I uploaded this file as a personal message to them? Actually I was looking for categories to add to the image and saw dozens of deletion nominations that have been recently added to similar images, most of which have been successful because nobody was watching that file during that week. I don't have time for the purge to make its way to this image, only to be deleted when I'm not looking. And seriously block the upholder? If you have a personal issue take it to the admins, that is a bizarre addition to the conversation. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 06:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think that you should be blocked for this alone, but unfortunately your behavior was to some degree what would be called "pointy" on English Wikipedia. Anyway, you seemed to be claiming that this image is equivalent to File:Earth_Ocean_Flag.png , but that's not the case, since this image has some obnoxious interpretations which the other one doesn't. I'm not sure that your intervention has clarified anything in particular... 15:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I created an image which is a simple combination of other public domain sources, which is intended for editorial and illustrative purposes. Undoubtedly it is obnoxious, but that is the point, the image was designed to draw a connection between the Nazi swastika (universally accepted as a symbol of white supremacy) and the design commonly known as the Confederate Flag (believed by some to be a symbol of white supremacy). I have created and uploaded many such combination images in the past, though most were less offensive. I uploaded it, but noticed that all of the other images in the category Category:Fictional National Socialist variants on the flag of the United States had been nominated for deletion. As I went looking further, I saw more and more of these flag images had been nominated for deletion by the same user, though none of the discussions actually had any participation in them. I simply did not want my image deleted while I was inactive, as I am inactive on Commons 98% of the time.
- I'm sorry that I don't know what you're talking about when you say intervention, I'm not trying to intervene in anything. I have been active at EN for nearly a decade, and am well familiar with the concept of "disruptive editing to prove a point". However you seem to be misinterpreting something I've done as being related to something else. Please don't assume anything about what I "seem" to be claiming and just take my words at face value. Apologies if there is some other point you think I am trying to make other than "please don't delete this image while I am inactive on Commons", because that is not the case. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 16:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't succeed in clarifying any issues (that I can see), but you did manage to insert your personality into the center of things... AnonMoos (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
One question: does this flag exist in real life? If it doesn't exist, it has never been portayed in books, films and so on and it's just a graphic creation of the user, it should be deleted.--Carnby (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope, Commons is not a hosting site for personal artwork or doodles. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Deletion requests/Template:NGruev: missing evidence of permission. Stefan4 (talk) 08:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per above thanks -- Deadstar (msg) 09:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination & discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Unremarkable custom bike being used for advertising for a "custom prototype" at http://newsescort.com/?p=50. This image has no educational or encyclopedic value because it's neither a stock motorcycle, nor a custom bike of well known public interest, or even an example of a recognized type of custom bike, e.g. a chopper. It's a regular bike with some off-the-shelf parts bolted on. On en.wikipedia, the uploader is repeatedly adding the image to articles for promotional purposes via various dynamic IPs. Due to previous deception by uploader about the a copyright-violating photo of this same bike, we have reason to suspect the basic facts about the subject of the picture are false. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
- Disagree as to lack of educational value. This is a good example of a "mixed breed" custom. --Pitke (talk) 11:30, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: The uploader says it is own work; the image is not in use on any pages at the present time, making the comment "repeatedly adding" unable to verify. The image is not the same as that in the link (the wheels are differently oriented and the lighting is different). No reason to delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The depicted 3D model is likely copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 11:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Apart from having been uploaded by Russavia, how does this differ from Category:Millennium Falcon (and a substantial portion of Category:Star Wars)? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: The licensing on this picture is ok as far as it goes, if anyone wishes to nominate other stuff which exists, the category can be considered. Otherwise, that's out of scope for this nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This was nominated for deletion and closed with a rationale that doesn't explain how the nomination itself was invalid. This is Scott (Russavia) and I agree this should be deleted as per the previous nomination. If an admin decides to keep it, can you please delete it and re-upload under your own username so that I am not liable for this remaining on Commons. Thanks F-OIAJ (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete copyright violation, the keep result of the first DR is bizarre with an incomprehensible rationale. Disney owns the rights for Lucasfilm, and they are notorious for protecting their intellectual property and derivative works. --Fæ (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ManishK236 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata.
- File:Aruna Jayanthi.jpg
- File:Capgemini Zurich, Switzerland.jpg
- File:Capgemini Woking, UK.jpg
- File:Capgemini Campus, Hyderabad, India.jpg
- File:Capgemini Office, Bangalore, India.jpg
- File:Capgemini Chennai, India.jpg
- File:Paul Hermelin.PNG – unlike the photos above, which are all claimed to be the uploader's own work, this is attributed to someone named Sunil Nat. According to Linkedin, Sunil Nat is a consultant at the Mumbai branch of Capgemini. It seems unlikely that a company of Capgemini's size would use their their India-based consultants to take official profile portraits of their France-based CEO, rather than employing a professional staff photographer or hiring a professional third-party photographer. Another uploader, User:Vishal.wadkar86 uploaded the same photo as File:Paul Hermelin New Image.jpg and claimed to have personally created it. See previous discussion (permanent link).
- File:Serge Kampf.jpg – also attributed to Sunil Nat
—LX (talk, contribs) 11:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- I had obtained necessary permissions for the images and had it emailed as well. But do let me know what I can do to resolve these issues
—ManishK236 (talk, contribs)
- Necessary permissions for what? To claim that you created the photos yourself? —LX (talk, contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vishal.wadkar86 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, watermarks present in some of the images, and the uploader's history; the uploader claimed to have personally created File:Paul Hermelin New Image.jpg, which also seemed unlikely. (See this discussion/permanent link for details.)
- File:Capgemini logo new.png – so apparently Vishal Wadkar created the Capgemini logo. Seems unlikely.
- File:Capgemini Switzerland View.jpg
- File:Capgemini Spain.jpg – watermarked Maris A Carranza www.fotosensible.com
- File:Capgemini Spain View.jpg – watermarked Maris A Carranza www.fotosensible.com
- File:Capgemini Poland.jpg
- File:Capgemini Pune.jpg
- File:Capgemini Netherlands.jpg
- File:Capgemini Netherlands View.jpg
- File:Capgemini Grenoble France.jpg
- File:Capgemini Argentina.jpg
- File:Capgemini France View.jpg
- File:Capgemini Grenoble France View.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 11:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination, highly unlikely that any of these files are user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Lerkey
[edit]- File:Time-tracking in Wrike.png
- File:Обзор задач в Wrike.jpg
- File:Загрузка пользователей в Wrike.jpg
- File:Таймлайн в Wrike.jpg
- File:Список задач в Wrike.jpg
- File:Лента новостей в Wrike.jpg
- File:Workload_management_in_Wrike.jpg
- File:Activity_Stream_in_Wrike.png
- File:Workspace_in_Wrike.png
- File:Task_view_in_Wrike.png
- File:Dashboard_in_Wrike.png
- File:Dynamic_Timeline_in_Wrike.png
Lerkey (talk · contributions (views) · deleted user contributions · recent activity (talk · project · deletion requests) · logs · block log · global contribs · CentralAuth), all remaining not yet deleted promotional uploads. --Be..anyone (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Dharmadhyaksha as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: claims to be copied from a 1983 book. highly possible to be a copyvio. Just a simple diagram, but is better to conveerto to SVG. Amitie 10g (talk) 14:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
- Comment: Although a simple diagram, the concept explained in the diagram could still be copyrighted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:03, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Dharmadhyaksha as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: claims to have been taken form a 1997 book. Just a simple diagram, but is better to conveerto to SVG. Amitie 10g (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: 1997 book illustration. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Insufficient evidence to support the PD rationale (no evidence of when and where the first publication took place; not taken before 1946). —LX (talk, contribs) 17:17, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a wrong name, and the file with correct name has been created. fao (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work . HombreDHojalata.talk 20:30, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Image of painting with no information as to the lifespan of the painter. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Ростов-на-Дону до Октябрьской революции. Большой Столыпинский проспект (ныне Ворошиловский проспект).jpg
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
double of File:Big Stolypinsky avenue.jpeg Радион (talk) 21:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate as listed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete This montage is certainly not completely the work of the uploader as claimed because this File:Melbourne skyline from Williamstown.png (uploader from Flickr by the same editor) is a Flickr image not by the uploader and has a different licence to the one for this image; sa-2.0 as opposed to sa-4.0. If we can have a list of the proper sources for each image we can determine the copyright status of the montage and its real licence if all the images are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete This montage (a 2nd version) is certainly not completely the work of the uploader as claimed because this File:Melbourne skyline from Williamstown.png (uploader from Flickr by the same editor) is a Flickr image not by the uploader and has a different licence to the one for this image; sa-2.0 as opposed to sa-4.0. If we can have a list of the proper sources for each image we can determine the copyright status of the montage and its real licence if all the images are freely licenced. Ww2censor (talk) 21:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Ww2censor: Please see the page now, I have added each file source and author. They are all licensed under free CC licenses. Ashton 29 (talk) 03:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Good job, but you should link to the actual original images used where possible such as the Flickr urls or the original commons uploads. You must release the montage under the lowest copyright licence of those images which is actually cc-by-2.0 not as you have done cc-by-sa-4.0. BTW, you should indicate that only the montage is your own work, by including the image sources inside the source filed of the information template and noting your contribution of making the montage. Then everything will be fine and I'll happily withdraw the nomination. Thanks Ww2censor (talk) 09:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Well past 7 day grace period, no withdrawal; deleting as nominated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The piece of 3d art is designed in 1973 by a group of architects in the head with of Ju. N. Trahtenberg (Russian: Ю. Н. Трахтенберг)[2] 195.50.31.213 21:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Ростов-на-Дону в начале XX века. Городской театр (сейчас Ростовский областной академический Молодежный театр) в 1912.jpg
[edit]_%D0%B2_1912.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%B2_1912.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
double of File:Nakhichevan theatre old.jpg Радион (talk) 22:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate file, per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Probable COM:COPYVIO unless {{PD-US-1978-89}}: Photo used by RE/MAX and its agents for many years. Current "official" less-cropped versions at Balloons_low.jpg and larger version (2491×3016, EXIF date 2014-07-08 08:53:39) via http://www.remax.com/newsroom/images-videos/remax-photos/ as well. Nominating for discussion in case someone can show pre-1989 publication: The first Re/Max balloon event was in 1978, and this photo has been around so long that it might be pre-1989. Closeapple (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No indication of user's own work, no date, COM:PRP. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars Celebration Anaheim
[edit]The depicted 3D objects (including models and toy items) are likely copyrighted.
- File:Celebration - Ahsoka toy sculpt (17207365970).jpg
- File:Celebration - Hallmark Itty Bitties (17208707219).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (16774062093).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17186898337).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17206776110).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17206833788).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17368725516).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17368766386).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17392737832).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17393929701).jpg
- File:SWCA - Armada (Millennium Falcon) (17016742149).jpg
- File:SWCA - Armada (Star Destroyer) (17201232392).jpg
- File:SWCA - Armada (Tantive IV) Close-Up (17015359830).jpg
- File:SWCA - AT-RT (17176946376).jpg
- File:SWCA - Millennium Falcon model (16995459917).jpg
- File:SWCA - Millennium Falcon model (17015118678).jpg
- File:SWCA - Storm IV Twin-Pod cloud car (17201195172).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17016742149).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17201232392).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Close-Up_(17015359830).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}
Gazebo (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The depicted items of concept art are likely copyrighted and seem unlikely to be freely licensed.
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17206882140).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17206926700).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17392682872).jpg
- File:Celebration Anaheim - The Force Awakens Exhibit (17394439165).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 12:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The depicted "Han Solo in carbonite" 3D artwork is likely copyrighted.
- File:Celebration - Han in Carbonite (17368948436).jpg
- File:SWCA - Carbonite Han Solo (17202307891).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Assuming that the depicted AT-AT vehicle is a copyrighted 3D model (even if animatronic), the photos are likely to be derivative works.
- File:Celebration - AT-AT (17368969346).jpg
- File:SWCA - AT-AT (17202316621).jpg
- File:SWCA - AT-AT (17202893315).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 12:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
The depicted artwork is likely copyrighted.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gazebo (talk) 12:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- It may depend on c:FOP parameters, but I tend to agree with Gazebo. Kathisma (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars Celebration Anaheim
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted artworks.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 14:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ahmadtalk 22:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars Celebration Anaheim
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:SWCA - Artwork (17015159918).jpg
- File:SWCA - Hoth diorama (17015358590).jpg
- File:SWCA - Kenny Baker model (17202872135).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 05:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars Celebration Anaheim
[edit]COM:DW of copyrighted works.
- File:Celebration - Rancho Obi-Wan (17394912555).jpg
- File:Celebration - Rancho Obi-Wan (17394914185).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Files in Category:Star Wars Celebration Anaheim
[edit].jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(17201232762).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yuraily Lic (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 21:19, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The depicted jewelry item is the main subject of the image and is likely copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The artwork on the rug is the main subject of the photo and is likely copyrighted. Gazebo (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- It may depend on c:FOP parameters, but I tend to agree with Gazebo. Kathisma (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo is likely a derivative work of the copyrighted Darth Vader character. Gazebo (talk) 12:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Given that the vehicle incorporates artistic elements from the copyrighted Darth Vader character, the photo is likely to be a derivative work. Gazebo (talk) 12:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work from File:Human androgen receptor and androgen binding.svg, but no attribution given to the author. Starless (talk) 13:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Starless: Corrected. Next time I will take a closer.--Tankist-777 14:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Fixed Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
absolutely identical image (copy) avbl in much better quality, see File:И-16 у перед ангаром 1926 г., Красногвардейск.jpg Uli Elch (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
So it they also are - me loaded mine drawing. Illustrations are executed by the Photoshop program in style of the photo. Names at them various - at color and at black-and-white. Vladimir Dolgov 19.23 11.07.2015
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like this file lacks permission from the depicted person. This is covered in the Norwegian law "Åndsverksloven" §45c, with a possible exemption that covers biographies in §23. I can't find any permission from the depicted person, and due to Ticket#2015071110006692 I ask for deletion of the photo. Jeblad (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
possible confusion with File:Vijadukt Pavlovici.jpg Ma▀▄Ga 15:09, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
possible confusion with File:Most Studencica.JPG Ma▀▄Ga 15:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
