Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/07/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
This is not the own work of the uploader. It is from the Fall 2014 issue of Híbrido Magazine. A much larger version can be seen here. An exact bit-for-bit match is online at B1PtvnJCAAAFmN4.jpg. —RP88 (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 18:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
What?
--Han-Jun Cho (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AdilsOon1998 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Trx (Sofrimento).ogg
- File:Rony Bravo & Emana Cheezy - Não Adianta(DM).ogg
- File:Qualquer (Ft. Dizzy Lemos).ogg
- File:07 Edson dos Anjos - Estresse (2015) (MatimbaNews).ogg
- File:Trx MUSIC (Sofrimento).ogg
- File:Okenio - M Feat. Kelson Most Wanted)(DM).ogg
- File:O Teu Lugar - Emana Cheezy (So Music News).ogg
- File:Emana Cheezy - Formou (Prod. By Edivaldo Esteves)(Dino-Musik).ogg
- File:Edson-dos-anjos-back-iii(Achei MP3).ogg
- File:Edson-dos-anjos-back-ii(Achei MP3).ogg
- File:Edson Dos Anjos - Shots (Remix) (Ft. Duo)(DM).ogg
- File:20-MierQues - Essa Miúda (Ft. Lil Fox & Emana Cheezy)(DM).ogg
- File:04 Trono (Ft. Most Wanted) (Prod. VNTH).ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete Tagged with copyvio because Mass deletion of files added by User:AdilsOon1998: All files (music) grabbed from Internet = mass uploads of copyrighted works from users from Angola --> Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miguelmito + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Commons + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wizard gang + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MorenoMoreno2015 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quissonde Jai G + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lucombostart + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AdilsOon1998 + User talk:Nurio Adriano + User talk:Domingas Maria + multiple other related mass DRs/copyvio. Action is Facebook coordinated, see e.g. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angola/1848698408688885 + https://www.facebook.com/groups/1553180724893584/ + https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angolla/439553186121930 + etc.. Gunnex (talk) 22:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Song and album covers. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:My Family Instrumental (Alien Boys Record).ogg
- File:Pausado Com Meus Nigas- Vex Py (Stop Future).ogg
- File:Somos Fresh (Ft Abdjany & Primordio Maica).ogg
- File:B.I.G- Tão Good.ogg
- File:My Family Primordio Maica (Alien Boys Record).ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Aleluia Primordio Maica ( Prod, Alien Boys Record).ogg
- File:My Family Primordio Maica (Alien Boys Record).ogg
- File:B.I.G- Tão Good.ogg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged with copyvio because
Mass deletion of files added by User:Cachala59: All files (music) grabbed from Internet = mass uploads of copyrighted works from users from Angola --> Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miguelmito + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Commons + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wizard gang + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MorenoMoreno2015 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quissonde Jai G + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lucombostart + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AdilsOon1998 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cachala59 + User talk:Nurio Adriano + User talk:Domingas Maria + multiple other related mass DRs/copyvios. Action is Facebook coordinated, see e.g. https://www.facebook.com/pages/NG-Commons/920336011341496 + https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angola/1848698408688885 + https://www.facebook.com/groups/1553180724893584/ + https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angolla/439553186121930 + etc.. Gunnex (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
DELETE ! ! 70.209.140.34 22:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
Image with advertising. Cjp24 (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope image. De728631 (talk) 21:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.africagag.com/media/chinedu-be-like. Josve05a (talk) 10:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. Yann (talk) 10:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright Violation Photo by Zach Gold Sharonmherrera (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
copyvio Photo by photographer Zachary Gold. Sharonmherrera (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
copyvio Photo by photographer Zachary Gold. Sharonmherrera (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: User request. Yann (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Benjamim tumai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:10 Hoe (Prod. By Most Wanted).mp3.wav
- File:03 Steevy FLow - Cuida da tua life (Ft. Derry Fost)(DM).wav
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Tagged with
Mass deletion of files added by User:Benjamim tumai: All files (music) grabbed from Internet = mass uploads of copyrighted works from users from Angola --> Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Miguelmito + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Geraldo Commons + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wizard gang + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MorenoMoreno2015 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Quissonde Jai G + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lucombostart + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by AdilsOon1998 + Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Cachala59 + User talk:Nurio Adriano + User talk:Domingas Maria + multiple other related mass DRs/copyvios. Action is Facebook coordinated, see e.g. https://www.facebook.com/pages/NG-Commons/920336011341496 + https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angola/1848698408688885 + https://www.facebook.com/groups/1553180724893584/ + https://www.facebook.com/pages/Wikimedia-Angolla/439553186121930 + etc.. Gunnex (talk) 12:59, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copvyios. Yann (talk) 13:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Module:Wikibase
[edit]Non working module. Depreciated. Wikibase client Lua interface should be used instead.
This module is not fixable. It depends on accessing page text from wikidata. Accessing page text from other projects, like this module is attempting, does not work and thus this module is not fixable. This module is an hack, originating from Wikidata and since it was written the wikibase client extension has added an lua interface for getting data from wikidata, which should be used instead of this. --Snaevar (talk) 11:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete as the culprit. --Ricordisamoa 13:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination Jarekt (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations and making false authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Is not a fake, it is my picture, it's just my house —uv1980(talk, contribs) 13:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'm sure you can understand that the fact that you also claimed that about other photos that clearly weren't your own work makes it hard to take that statement at face value. Why does the image have such low resolution, and why doesn't it have any metadata? Both of those properties are typical of files grabbed from other sites on the Internet, as opposed to photos from one's own camera. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- ok, you do not believe me, tell me how you want me to have to prove that it is my home and that this is a picture made by me. surely, I find it absurd to doubt my actions, considering it's the first time I use wikipedia, so I can make mistakes in good faith.—uv1980(talk, contribs) 18:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- A full-resolution photo with intact metadata would go a long way. If you do not wish to publish a higher-resolution version under a free license, e-mailing it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org just for evidence would also work. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Never mind, I figured out where you grabbed it from: https://www.google.com/maps/views/view/113902545181323968284/gphoto/6171653273925255938. The full resolution version of the photo is 3456×5184, and it was taken with a Canon EOS 550D more than 1½ years before you uploaded it here. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I understand that for you has become a personal speech to me. The link you put just comes from my account VITALAGROS (is the email address of one of my family company), the Canon 550D is my camera.Need More photos taken that day to convince you? There I also represented with firefighters. I commented to prove https://www.google.com/maps/views/u/0/view/113902545181323968284/gphoto/6171653273925255938?gl=it —uv1980(talk, contribs) 09:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please understand that thousands of copyright violations get uploaded and deleted every day on this site. When someone with a history of claiming other people's works as their own uploads a low-resolution photo with no metadata, and the photo has been previously published elsewhere with higher resolution and intact metadata, it is almost always an indication of copyright violation. In this case, you've proven that you control the Google+ account where the photo was first uploaded. So I think my suspicions were justified given the facts at hand when I started this discussion, but at this point, I'm satisfied that this is indeed your own owrk. Sorry and thanks for your understanding. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, withdrawn. —LX (talk, contribs) 08:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Purported Pokemon characters, which makes this a derivative of non-free material. Storkk (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Clearly copyvio, use {{Copyvio}} instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Pleclown (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
no quite notable people, out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 04:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no quite notable people, out of scope -- Christian Ferrer 05:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope, personal art file of a non-realistic police car. Commons is not a personal file hosting site. OSX II (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope, fake George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sman.doger (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:Salman Iqbal Masood Dogar - Dheer Da Dogran Sheikhupura.jpg
- File:Salman Iqbal Masood - Dheer Da Dogran.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sman.doger (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:40, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
File:By omã.jpg, etc.
[edit]And also: File:Gustavo omã.jpg, File:By omã camisa 1.jpg, File:By omã camisa 2.jpg, File:By omã camisa 3.jpg, File:By omã camisa 4.jpg, File:By omã camisa 5.jpg
Promotional material of a designer or his non notorious company trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. --Stego (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SPAM, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
File:By omã.jpg, etc.
[edit]And also: File:Gustavo omã.jpg, File:By omã camisa 1.jpg, File:By omã camisa 2.jpg, File:By omã camisa 3.jpg, File:By omã camisa 4.jpg, File:By omã camisa 5.jpg
Promotional material of a designer or his non notorious company trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. --Stego (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SPAM, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Promotional stuff of a company trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. Stego (talk) 06:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
File:By omã.jpg, etc.
[edit]And also: File:Gustavo omã.jpg, File:By omã camisa 1.jpg, File:By omã camisa 2.jpg, File:By omã camisa 3.jpg, File:By omã camisa 4.jpg, File:By omã camisa 5.jpg
Promotional material of a designer or his non notorious company trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. --Stego (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SPAM, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
File:By omã.jpg, etc.
[edit]And also: File:Gustavo omã.jpg, File:By omã camisa 1.jpg, File:By omã camisa 2.jpg, File:By omã camisa 3.jpg, File:By omã camisa 4.jpg, File:By omã camisa 5.jpg
Promotional material of a designer or his non notorious company trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. --Stego (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SPAM, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Promotional stuff of a company trying to use Wikipedia to promote itself. Stego (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
File:By omã.jpg, etc.
[edit]And also: File:Gustavo omã.jpg, File:By omã camisa 1.jpg, File:By omã camisa 2.jpg, File:By omã camisa 3.jpg, File:By omã camisa 4.jpg, File:By omã camisa 5.jpg
Promotional material of a designer or his non notorious company trying to use Wikipedia to promote himself. --Stego (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: SPAM, out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ravi agrani (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:During Rituals.jpg
- File:Press Conference in Hotel Ramada Plaza Varanasi.jpg
- File:During Student Life.jpg
- File:In Office.jpg
- File:Park in Varanasi City.jpg
- File:On Ganga Swakshata Abhiyaan.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mikemesa718 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 10:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Was intended to create a category instead of a page Thiotrix (talk) 10:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Yes, please delete this page. I created it, and indeed wanted to create Category:Championica instead. Tommy Kronkvist (talk), 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC).
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 27 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) 10:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 27 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) 10:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 27 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) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:15, 27 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) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 27 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) 11:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 27 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) 11:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:17, 27 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) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:17, 27 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) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and of too poor a quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:19, 27 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) 11:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and without context, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
COM:EDUSE Artwork without obvious educational use. Voltteri (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 27 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) 12:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 27 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) 12:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:21, 27 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) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 27 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) 12:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Given description, category and filename, likely attack photo/vandalism. No intrinsic merit, and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by U cho aung (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos. While the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page... is allowed, both are unused and therefore out of scope.
Storkk (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by U cho aung George Chernilevsky talk 05:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Thibaut120094 George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not in scope. Voltteri (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unuseful redirect ; request by the uploader Tangopaso (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom George Chernilevsky talk 05:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Habibullah Rind Baloch (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Habibullah (7).jpg
- File:Habibullah (8) 2.jpg
- File:Habibullah (5).jpg
- File:Habibullah (1).jpg
- File:Habibullah (2).jpg
- File:Habibullah (3).jpg
- File:Habibullah (4).jpg
Ies (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Outside of project scope. Voltteri (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal piece of art. Outside of project scope. Voltteri (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, not in project scope. Voltteri (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per norm. --Sreejith K (talk) 11:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 05:26, 27 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) 11:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:58, 27 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) 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and without context, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 15:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Google translates description as "Imagine this three-dimensional eclipse that will occur in March of 2015". Storkk (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and without context, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused promotional material, out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:01, 27 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) 12:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, small file, possible copyright violation, possible vandalism Voltteri (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:02, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BrandholmerState (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. These appear to pertain to a non-notable fictional state.
Storkk (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, out of scope. Voltteri (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 27 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) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Voltteri (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
vandalism Reinhardhauke (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. unused personal image. Amada44 talk to me 16:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Out of scope. Voltteri (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 27 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) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:08, 27 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) 14:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:09, 27 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) 14:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 27 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) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:10, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. Out of scope. Voltteri (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 27 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) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Adalberto Mar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable
Motopark (talk) 12:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has written as the description that the file should be deleted. Inferior version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector3.jpg Voltteri (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I made this picture. Yes it is an inferior version. please delete it. Taltastic (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 27 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) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The user has written as the description that the file should be deleted. Inferior version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector3.jpg Voltteri (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I made this picture. Yes it is an inferior version. please delete it. Taltastic (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed, this is unused and therefore out of scope. Additional probable copyright issues. Storkk (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:15, 27 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) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:15, 27 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) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 27 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) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 27 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) 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork. While "the uploading of small numbers of images... for use on a personal user page... is allowed", this is unused and therefore out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:16, 27 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.
- File:Tradition and Innovation in American Free Verse.pdf
- File:They Aren't, Until I Call Them.pdf
- File:A History of American Literature.pdf
- File:Charles Olson.pdf
- File:In Search of a Formula - Analyzing American and Hungarian Literary Characters.pdf
- File:Our visitor from infinitude—Emily Dickinson’s poetry.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I was to use it for a Wikipage, but changed my mind, you can delete it
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. George Chernilevsky talk 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not in scope. Voltteri (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not in scope. Voltteri (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal photo. Not in scope. Voltteri (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Poor quality, orphaned/replaced by better versions in Category:Borazine. Leyo 15:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Really low resolution, orphaned/replaced by better alternatives in Category:Nitromethane. Leyo 15:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unused poor duplicate George Chernilevsky talk 16:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digesh dewangan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Two signatures of a non-notable individual, in use on a self-promotional project page, out of COM:SCOPE
Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Digesh dewangan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Digesh +.jpg
- File:Digesh bilaigarh.jpg
- File:Digesh Dewangan Bilaigarh.jpg
- File:Digesh.jpg
- File:Digesh Dewangan.jpg
- File:Digesh kumar Dewangan.JPG
- File:Digesh kumar.JPG
- File:Digesh dewangan.jpg
Ies (talk) 17:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:25, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 20:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect per de:Diskussion:Gassman-Indol-Synthese. Jü uploaded a corrected version. Leyo 14:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 16:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Low quality, orphaned/replaced by better alternatives in Category:Malachite green. Leyo 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 16:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
watermark, no permission. License at source is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, not sufficient for Commons. Yann (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Deleted by Materialscientist. Manually closing broken DR. Revent (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
no pudo ser elaborado el proposito final Resaortiz (talk) 21:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope George Chernilevsky talk 17:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 01:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: At least contains copyrighted art of Hello Kitty Pitke (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kartiktiwary3 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very likely copyright violations. See this user's upload log on enwiki. Most, if not all, of these images have been deleted as blatant copyvios there. Self-work is doubtful given the low resolution and no EXIF.
Nick (talk) 05:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Delete For the third image at least since it seems to be a slightly cropped version of the image found here [1]. Also, in my opinion the letters are suspicious. I would expect the uploader to be able to upload the image without letters. The same image is here [2] without those letters, and apparently an author is provided. Dontreader (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete all. These same files were uploaded to the English Wikipedia and were all deleted as copyright violations there (I was the nominator). The fort image with the superimposed text appears to be copied from here. The fossils park image can be found at higher resolution on panoramio. -- Whpq (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio Pitke (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
error. wrong Santalucía seguros (talk) 07:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per prompt uploader request. Accidental upload? Pitke (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
error. wrong pic Santalucía seguros (talk) 07:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per prompt uploader request. Accidental upload? Pitke (talk) 21:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? This is the uploader's only contribution.
In addition, article about subject en:Veronica Grey was deleted 4 times, so the subject can very well be non-notable and out of project scope. The photo's quality is bad, Commons has enough better photos about women in bikinis. Taivo (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. unclear copyright status, low quality, subject probably isn't even notable. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Delete the redirect too. Green Giant (talk) 01:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Probable copyvio of a probably non-notable person Pitke (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Can you describe the file correctly? This is the uploader's only contribution. Quality is not excellent, Commons has enough photos about women in bikinis and the photo has strange watermark. Taivo (talk) 08:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - As we do have lots of bikini pictures with no issues, there's no harm in deleting one which might be problematic. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious permission, many unproblematic images within the scope Pitke (talk) 21:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arunanoop93 (talk · contribs)
[edit]One likely professional headshot, and one purported film poster. The headshot is a duplicate of File:"rammallam.jpg".jpg (tagged npd), which has the tag {{PD-because|its a photo of a person}}. Uploader is unlikely to be copyright holder. If uploader is in fact the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 10:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Pitke (talk) 21:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Available on multiple wallpaper sites, uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No permission Pitke (talk) 22:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Not authors work. Copyrighted scan of "The World Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs" - Dougal Dixon - Moscow , Penguin Books , 2009 - Page . 72 IJReid (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source. IJReid (talk) 19:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Encyclopedia - Tim Haynes, Paul Chambers - Moscow, Rosman, 2008 - p. 12 IJReid (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Encyclopedia - Tim Haynes, Paul Chambers - Moscow, Rosman, 2008 - p. 12 IJReid (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Great Atlas of Dinosaurs - Susanna Davidson, Stephanie Terenbull Rachel Firth - Moscow, Rosman, 2004 - p. 30 IJReid (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Great Atlas of Dinosaurs - Susanna Davidson, Stephanie Terenbull Rachel Firth - Moscow, Rosman, 2004 - p. 30 IJReid (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Encyclopedia - Tim Haynes, Paul Chambers - Moscow, Rosman, 2008 - p. 12 IJReid (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source: Dinosaurs: An Illustrated Encyclopedia - Tim Haynes, Paul Chambers - Moscow, Rosman, 2008 - p. 12 IJReid (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
source: cut from music video AlleinStein (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
source:http://musicshow.vn/images/upload/city%20guide/trung%20tam%20van%20hoa/nha%20hat%20tuoi%20tre/nha-hat-tuoi-tre.jpg AlleinStein (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
cut from video clip AlleinStein (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No evidence as to the date or manner of publication. Found on a newspaper website but identified (without any supporting evidence) as a publicity photo. Without knowing the date of publication, the claim that the copyright was not renewed is just nonsense. Note that the LA Times began renewing its copyrights with 1958 issues,, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
source: http://img.tamtay.vn/files/2008/03/12/caopahanh/photos/95305/47da055f_maiyeuem_net_thu20phuong20va20huy20mc.jpg AlleinStein (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
cut from video clip AlleinStein (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
source:http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q188/giocanh/doituacanhsuong.jpg AlleinStein (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
source: http://c1.f21.img.vnecdn.net/2015/04/01/11-2814-1427859609.jpg AlleinStein (talk) 20:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dighe Prashant (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely authorship claims based on the nature of the images.
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
because its a prank 1984gilera (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
cut from music video AlleinStein (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted logo, cut from the CD's cover. Source: http://audio.pmbvn.com/userimg_bd/14/09/29/large_gal_94929_542968836a444.jpg AlleinStein (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files from enwiki user Softjuice
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering en:User talk:Softjuice (serial copyright violator) + Commons logs (only copyvios, besides a map) + confirmed & blocked sock and part of sock farm Category:Sockpuppets of Tnaniua. Related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files from enwiki user Patriotmissile. File list based on this search:
- File:Chairlift tower in Pyongchang, South Korea.png --> uploaded 2010 but grabbed from (example) http://english.triptokorea.com/english/viewtopic.php?popup=yes&today=no&printable=yes&t=3590&postdays=0&postorder=desc&start=0 = http://english.triptokorea.com/english/UserFiles/Image/Ski%20Tour/Yongpyong/Yongpyong5.jpg (last modified: 2006)
- File:(49) Metapolis.jpg
- File:Cheonho-dong.jpg
- File:Leader's View skyscrapers in Suseong, Daegu, South Korea.jpg
- File:Cheonho Bridge.jpg
Info Removing "Copy to Wikimedia Commons" tags on files still available on enwiki. Depending on outcome here, DR will be processed at enwiki for all related files available only locally. --Gunnex (talk) 20:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No exif, unlikely user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find a specific free license for this. The source URL talks about free culture, but that isn't enough. This work is also on Bandcamp and marked with a nonfree license (CC BY-NC-SA). Anon126 (✉ ⚒) 21:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: Photo by Zachary Gold. Sharonmherrera (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping, image was blank. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation: picasso. Sharonmherrera (talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Picasso painting on a wall between two drapes, not correctly titled, and as nominated. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FCKGW-RHQQ2-YXRKT-8TG6W-2B7Q8 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No evidence of a free license.
- File:Swedish Rite Freemasonry St Andrews Degree Regalia.jpg
- File:Swedish Rite Freemasonry St Johns Degree Regalia.jpg
- File:Swedish Rite Freemasonry Chapter Degree Regalia.jpg
Yann (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The source/license and author information of every image used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. See also Commons:Collages. No related uploads by user. Gunnex (talk) 23:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Obviously not created by uploader, as noted in the summary. Left part of the logo (the lotus) is above TOO. Sovereign Sentinel (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This image looks like it was taken by a professional photographer, in my opinion. It's a cropped version of this image on her Facebook page (notice the watermark). If the uploader took this picture, I believe proof must be provided using COM:OTRS. Dontreader (talk) 06:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from Google Earth and music. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:57, 27 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) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Image was in use all over the internet earlier and older, also in BW variant. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Do not look like own work. Look like screenshots, no EXIF. The uploader committed other copyvios.
- File:Rónald González - Saprissa.jpg
- File:Christian Montero.jpg
- File:Jeaustin Campos 2015.jpg
- File:Francisco Calvo Saprissa 2015.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
- File:Diego Calvo - Valerenga.jpg
- File:Carlos Watson 2016.jpg
- File:Ariel Rodríguez Bangkok Glass.jpg
- File:Ariel Rodríguez 04032015.jpg
- File:Danny Carvajal Agosto 2015 - Saprissa.jpg
- File:Erick Cabalceta 2015 Saprissa.jpg
- File:Ariel Rodríguez Agosto 2015.jpg
- File:Ariel Rodríguez Final Invierno 2014.jpg
- File:Jeaustin Campos - Septiembre 2015 Saprissa.jpg
- File:Diego Calvo Saprissa 2016.jpg
- File:Francisco Calvo Quesada 2015.jpg
- File:Ariel Rodríguez 2015 Saprissa.jpg
Didym (talk) 08:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Low definition. No metadata. Possible copyvio from http://cooper.co.uk/shop/bitumen-testing/dynamic-shear-rheometer/ Cjp24 (talk) 15:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No metadata. No ticket. Image from http://www.rheotest.de/deutsch/laborger%C3%A4te/dsr-bitumenrheometer-messplatz-rheotest-rn-4-3/ Cjp24 (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 27 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) 15:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(es): Es un trabajo derivado con dudas sobre el licenciamiento del mismo basado en una imegen previamente publicada aquí Tecsie∇(Talk) 16:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
(en): It is a derivative work without a valid license from an image previously published here Tecsie∇(Talk) 02:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(es): El nombre del archivo no es descriptivo y la imagen parece ser previamente publicada en un sitio web sin claridad acerca del tipo de licencia usada (ver aquí)
(en): This file had been published in a different web site here without clarity about the license used. Besides name of the file is no descriptive at all. Tecsie∇(Talk) 16:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(en) This image was previously publish for a different person on other site here without a specific or allowed license, and with a better quality image.
(es) Esta imagen se encuentra publicada previamente por otra persona en un sitio diferente aquí sin una licencia especifica permitida en Commons. Ademas la imagen original parece tener mejor calidad. Tecsie∇(Talk) 16:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
not own work Fetx2002 (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
What? --Han-Jun Cho (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No indication of user's own work; image overprinted "love candy" in lower right corner. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
copyviolation Meerdervoort (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekeeping, file was removed previously. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(en) This image was previously published in another site here without a specific or allowed license. There is no confidence that this image is own work of uploader. (es) Esta imagen se encuentra publicada previamente en otro sitio diferente aquí sin una licencia específica permitida en Commons. No hay certeza de que esta imagen sea trabajo propio del usuario. Tecsie∇(Talk) 17:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
(en) This image was previously published in another site here without a specific or allowed license. There is no confidence that this image is uploader's own work. (es) Esta imagen se encuentra publicada previamente en otro sitio diferente aquí sin una licencia específica permitida en Commons. No hay certeza de que la imagen sea trabajo propio del usuario. Tecsie∇(Talk) 17:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I appreciated the direct link to the source image file. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably copyvio, own work claim highly doubtful. All other uploads of this subject identified as copyvios. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 17:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Jeedew (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2015 (UTC) This photo belongs to me, it was taken by me in 2014 with my cell phone and I give free use to anyone.
Jeedew (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Why do you "highly" doubt me Hedwig in Washington, and what do you mean ALL other uploads of this subject identified as copyvios? Not true. Please make it clear why you think this particular image is a violation, I would like to know so I don't make this mistake again! Thank you.
- Pardon me. All other uploads regarding the subject Annie Preece identified as copyright violations. That's why the own work claim is doubtful. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 11:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Info Previously published via http://websta.me/p/733610057409198690_9775477 (06.2014, via Instagram, © by Annie Preece) Gunnex (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Image lifted from subject's page. Image is copyright at source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
this is a bad upload of mine (own work). pls delete permanently Maggot (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Plus de nécessité Olbaussart75 (talk) 18:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of all the images on this screenshot of a facebook page. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This photo is unlikely to be "own work" of the single-purpose-account that uploaded it. The editor probably just grabbed it from this writter's profile at Amazon.com. Copyvio. Damiens.rf 18:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
From copyrighted source. IJReid (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Small size, 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) 12:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious authorship, dubious permission Pitke (talk) 08:14, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Plaque created in 1984 at the earliest. The photo is specifically of the artwork (so is not realistically de minimis), in Ukraine, which is a country where there is no general Freedom of Panorama exception. Note that the only minor exception (for current events and news reporting) does not apply here. Storkk (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree art, no FoP in Ukraine Pitke (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits a "Veikko Somerpuro". If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious authorship, ORTS needed Pitke (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrea Amilcare Quaranta (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. No confidence that any of these images are own work of uploader, eg: 3 copies same military patch, four historic photos, one picture of "GI's in Iraq, a cartoon and a group of people's headshots. Much more likely a cull of images from the internet, no exif data.
- File:Normal DSCF0122 (1).JPG
- File:Gis patch 2.JPG
- File:Gistrani1.jpg
- File:Gistrani2.jpg
- File:Gis in iraq.jpg
- File:GIS patch.JPG
- File:Carabinieri nucleo investigativo.jpg
- File:Bestie di Satana.jpg
- File:Maresciallo Sebastiano D'Immè.jpg
- File:Sebastiano d'immè.jpg
- File:Kim Jong Un.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per COM:PCP Pitke (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not a shield, flag or emblem, nor is it a legislative text. It is not eligible for {{PD-MX-exempt}}. The front page of the source web site says the site contents are copyrighted "Derechos Reservados © 2015 Instituto de Elecciones y Participación Ciudadana". —RP88 (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Not eligible for licence used, source implies copyrighted work Pitke (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Billcosmos (talk · contribs)
[edit]All files uploaded 07. / 08.2013. Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Billcosmos and:
- File:Conrad Seoul Hotel.jpg (small size, no exif) --> most likely grabbed from internet, considering also (exampe) http://image.hotelpass.com/KRSEL2122.jpg (higher res, exif available = copyrighted work by © "Adam Bruzzone")
- File:Hanwha 63 Building.jpg --> sourced with a blog, licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-2.5}} which I can't confirm. This is most likely a reupload of the same file , considering logs (deleted per no permission). Note that some more files were tagged with no permission and reuploaded under the same title.
- File:Tower Palace Three, Tower G.jpg --> grabbed from internet, like http://www.touristlink.com/south-korea/samsung-tower-palace-3-tower-g/overview.html (© TouristLink.com 2015, All Rights Reserved.) = http://cdn1.images.touristlink.com/repository/S/A/M/S/U/N/G/T/samsung-tower-palace-3---g-_.jpg (last modified: 2012)
- File:Finance Tower.jpg (no exif) --> grabbed from (example) http://www.realtorseoul.com/residence.htm = http://www.realtorseoul.com/image/P1010622-1.jpg (last modified: 2008, exif available)
- File:Hyperion2.jpg --> grabbed from (example) http://populargusts.blogspot.de/2008/10/identify-background.html (2008) = http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_lxap4y0S1as/SOzm4bICFBI/AAAAAAAAClU/wqdE3qTknRk/s1600/be01a.jpg (higher res)
- File:SharpStarCity.jpg --> myteriously watermarked with "© Jerde Partnership via CTBUH" and grabbed from http://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/gundae-posco-the-star-city-tower-a/13184 ("© 2015 Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" = CTBUH) = http://buildingdb.ctbuh.org/class-image.php/userpics/10005/?width=1000&height=800&image=/images/albums/userpics/10005/SharpStarCity_Ext-Up2_%28c%29JerdePartnership.jpg (last modified: 2012)
- File:Technomart.jpg --> sourced & authored with "City_Maker", licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} (on which base?) but grabbed from (example) http://cnu.daejeon.kr/awa/Architecture%20in%20Korea/KA-Contemporary%20Building-Seoul-01.htm (bottom of the site, credit: "Photo by Byunguh Yu on 14 May 2011.") = http://cnu.daejeon.kr/awa/Architecture%20in%20Korea/Korean%20Building-Cy-Seoul/Techno%20Mart%2021%20Building-01.jpg (last modified: 2011, identical exif)
- File:Snv80312ku3 1.jpg --> per last file: sourced & authored with "City_Maker" etc.: most likely grabbed somewhere from Internet.
- File:Dicube.jpg --> grabbed somewhere from https://kowiana.wordpress.com/, considering https://kowiana.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/img_3316-e1313940127177.jpg (last modified: 2011)
- etc.
- File:Finance Tower.jpg
- File:Tower Palace Three, Tower G.jpg
- File:Hanwha 63 Building.jpg
- File:Hyperion2.jpg
- File:IFC TWO.jpg
- File:International Financial Center Three.jpg
- File:FKI BUILDING.jpg
- File:SharpStarCity.jpg
- File:Technomart.jpg
- File:Snv80312ku3 1.jpg
- File:TowerPalaceOneTowerC overall2 MG 1.jpg
- File:Dicube.jpg
- File:TowerPalaceOneTowerB overall1 MG 1.jpg
- File:Conrad Seoul Hotel.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious authorship claims, deleted by COM:PCP Pitke (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
EXIF and description credit "KOSUKE ARAKAWA", but uploader is a Pedro weil (talk · contribs) and claims {{Own}}. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious authorship claim, OTRS needed Pitke (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
These two audio files only convey a regional pronunciation which does not correspond to the standard pronunciation documented in the following German pronunciation dictionaries: Max Mangold und Dudenredaktion: Duden Aussprachewörterbuch. In: Der Duden in zwölf Bänden. Band 6, 6. Auflage, Dudenverlag, Mannheim/Leipzig/Wien/Zürich 2005, ISBN 978-3-411-04066-7, Eva-Maria Krech, Eberhard Stock, Ursula Hirschfeld, Lutz Christian Anders et al.: Deutsches Aussprachewörterbuch. Mit Beiträgen von Walter Haas, Ingrid Hove, Peter Wiesinger. 1. Auflage, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York 2009, ISBN 978-3-11-018202-6. The speaker pronounces the word [ˈku̯alə], [ˈku̯alən] instead of [ˈkvalə], [ˈkvalən]. I therefore propose to rename the files indicating that these are nonstandard pronunciations and to delete the file names “De-Qualle.ogg”, “De-Quallen.ogg” in order to make way for someone else to record a correct standard pronunciation under these file names. — Caligari (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Both audio files have been newly recorded by User:Jeuwre. So there's no need for them to be deleted. This section can be archived. — Caligari (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Lack of more common corresponding specimen is not grounds for deletion Pitke (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Album cover - very unlikely to be freely licensed as claimed. Storkk (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious permission, OTRS needed Pitke (talk) 20:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Watermarked and metadata credited to http://www.reinaldomedina.com : uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Dubious authorship claim, OTRS needed Pitke (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fredstudio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Oeuvres de fr:Pierre Bosco sans autorisation qu'elles sont libres.
- File:Course de chevaux à Vincennes, Huile sur toile, 100 x 50 cm.JPG
- File:Deux chevaux, Huile sur toile, 27 x 35 cm.JPG
- File:Composition, 1946, Huile sur toile, 38 x 46 cm.JPG
- File:La ville, Huile sur toile, 73 x 92 cm.JPG
- File:L'église de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1950, Huile sur toile, 80 x 99 cm.JPG
- File:La repasseuse, 1932, h-t, 82 x 65.JPG
- File:La Mère et l’enfant, 1945, h-t, 115x51.JPG
- File:Portrait de la mere de l’artiste (vers 1945-50), h-t, 78x67.JPG
- File:Les amoureux au clair de lune, Huile sur toile, 130 x 96 cm.JPG
- File:Cyclo cross en forêt de Saint-Germain, Huile sur toile, 61 x 50 cm.JPG
Habertix (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree art, will enter PD in 2064 Pitke (talk) 20:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Likely Flickrwashed. Flickr user is a "régine debatty", but the probable copyright holder is a Marina Zurkow. Storkk (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unfree art by a living artist. No permission. Pitke (talk) 19:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment I was unable to find the duplicate image without a URL link; same for all the following. There is no reason to expect a closing admin to search images for duplicates. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. 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 South Korea. --> considering COM:FOP#Korea (South) = 
non-commercial only for artistic works = derivated from an advertising poster, prominent enough in the photo (not COM:DM) to serve as image in related wiki-entries for en:Kim Hyun-joong (entertainer, actor, and the leader and main rapper of boyband SS501). Additional it is unclear if permanently installed. Gunnex (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in South Korea for commercial use, not eligible for de minimis. Pitke (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not Anopheles annulatus (no long palps, as typical for Anopheliane.) An. annulatus is from Papua New Guinea (http://www.mosquitocatalog.org/taxon_descr.aspx?ID=15403 and was first described in 1930). What is shown here is a rough sketch of Culiseta annulata. e.g. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Culiseta_annulata_from_Marshall_1938.jpg Küchenkraut (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. File has been renamed. Pitke (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
copyvio. [3] ChongDae (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Scope and likely copyright issues. Storkk (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits "Antoinette Kruger", whereas uploader is Roland Michael Obermuller (talk · contribs). Likely copyright violation. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Likely 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) 10:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 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) 10:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Purported magazine photo. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Again. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS - it's not really a "selfie". Velocitas (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Promotional image - COM:OTRS confirmation needed for license verification. Storkk (talk) 11:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
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) 11:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:07, 2 August 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) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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) 11:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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) 11:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Derivative of artwork of unknown origin and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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. Additional likely scope issues. Storkk (talk) 11:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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) 11:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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) 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 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) 11:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, 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) 11:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, 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) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 11:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 12:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 12:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 12:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a scan of a likely professional photo. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CBSPromotion (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:OTRS verification is needed that the uploader is indeed the copyright holder.
Storkk (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 12:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Promo photo: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:10, 2 August 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) 13:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 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) 13:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional photo 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) 13:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Likely 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) 13:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 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) 13:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 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) 13:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 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) 13:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Watermarked supergoodmovies.com: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
No metadata, likely 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) 14:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 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) 14:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:12, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 17:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 01:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 01:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Fma12 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, duplicate to File:ItalyPiemont.png. This file should be deleted and redirected IMO. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirected as per nom. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate to File:Poland-CIA WFB Map.png, in a superior format. IMO should be deleted and redirected. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate. Redirect created. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
error. wrong pic Santalucía seguros (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Simple text. Fma12 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I think, that the photo is out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Given the context, quality isn't unexpectedly bad. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - I agree with Andy here, though the file does need renaming and a better description. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Unused and not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. If the micronation actually exists in some non-imaginary sense, I am of course willing to withdraw. Storkk (talk) 10:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as per nom. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This picture is twice in Wikipedia. TJ Britannicus (talk) 10:59, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: yes, it is a duplicate of File:Gianna Hoschel 2.png but this is the higher resolution version, so File:Gianna Hoschel 2.png is deleted. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
picture without article — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Britannicus (talk • contribs) 2015-12-06T13:25:13 (UTC)
Kept: no reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Promotional material, copyrighted. Voltteri (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused and without context, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The image is an inferior version of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abdominal_Vacuum_Exercise.jpg Voltteri (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
A composite of three images which cannot be the work of the person depicted (not selfies), in front of artwork. Each of the three works needs a proper source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Duplicate of (better named) File:USS HARPERS FERRY (LSD 49) 131115-N-TQ272-162 (10882735666).jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment This should be processed as a {{Duplicate}} and not deleted outright. This will ensure any external re-users will not be affected. 1.122.192.139 11:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as duplicate. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Probleme de copyright. Droits non connus à propos de l'oeuvre representée Relf PP (talk) 17:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FoP in France Léna (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Belarus State Circus, 32 Independence Avenue, Minsk - the capital of Republic of Belarus.JPG
[edit]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. See previous discussion on this building: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Belarus State Circus 2007-03-03.jpg. Jarash (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also nominating File:Minsk Staatszirkus.JPG
- and File:Biełaruski dziaržaŭny cyrk.JPG --Jarash (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Belarus. Taivo (talk) 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, a duplicate to File:Nepal-CIA WFB Map.png. The two should be merged. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
German FoP doesn't allow photos of architecture taken from a higher viewpoint, see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. Code (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, actually German FOP allows photos from higher viewpoint. The viewpoint must be freely accessible to everybody. I think, that for this photo such place does not exist. Taivo (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
German FoP doesn't allow photos of architecture taken from a higher viewpoint, see de:Hundertwasserentscheidung. Code (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, actually German FOP allows photos from higher viewpoint. The viewpoint must be freely accessible to everybody. I think, that for this photo such place does not exist. Taivo (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think this is "own work" because it can be found on many websites, including pt:Tribuna do Norte (Rio Grande do Norte), which is a Brazilian newspaper, here: [4]. Please click on the image. It seems to have higher resolution. If the uploader took the picture, I believe proof is needed. Dontreader (talk) 06:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 13:36, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
seems to be copyrighted Buff (talk) 08:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, watermark sc-bastia.com. Taivo (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. Uploaded in a row in 01.2010 all files are — per logs — sourced and authored with "www.kookmin.ac.kr", licensed with a {{Cc-by-3.0}} but configured as "own work" which seems contradictory.
In fact, all files were taken from http://www.kookmin.ac.kr/site/about/cyber/prdata/19 (2007, see also http://mok.kookmin.ac.kr/PrPDS/Campus/04/02.jpg: last modified: 2007 --> a thumb for File:Sungkok library02.jpg) offering a 34 MB downloadable zip file http://mok.kookmin.ac.kr/PrPDS/Campus/campus.zip which contains (so far as I could see) all related photos. http://www.kookmin.ac.kr/site/about/cyber/prdata/19 is "COPYRIGHT© 2012 KOOKMIN UNIVERSITY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.". Permission via COM:OTRS needed.
- File:Kookmin university 99788.jpg
- File:Kookmin university figure03.jpg
- File:Myongone02.jpg
- File:Myungone01.jpg
- File:Sungkok library02.jpg
- File:Sungkok library01.jpg
- File:国民大学全景.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nominator. --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, also there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea. Taivo (talk) 13:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Suspect copyright violation, as a bigger, uncropped version is available here. Not going for speedy, as this seems to be the only image of a Lens Finder we currently have … El Grafo (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep- The link supplied is for a news report filed November 12, 2010 by Mike Fleming Jr. However, the image was uploaded by Brooksier on 15 July 2010 and after creation 8 July 2009, which is before the news report. Since the image has the metdata, is seems that the reporter (Mike Fleming Jr) used the commons image instead of User:BrooksieR taking the image from the link and failed to attribute the image properly.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Thanks for having a thorough look at this! However, the reporter can't have used the commons image, since ours is cropped and his one isn't. The image has been around the web since at least April 30 2010; 2.5 months before it was uploaded here. Here's another one from May. The uploader (only 2 contributions in the whole Wikimedia universe) may or may not be the original author. But in any case, the image was out there being used by some major websites before it was uploaded here, so we would've needed a written permission via COM:OTRS back then. That's all I have, I'll leave it up to the closing admin to decide whether that's enough for a deletion per COM:PCP. Personally, I'm tending towards Delete. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 07:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, per El Grafo's second statement. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Considering Google with multiple similar photos from the same spot, which are mostly sourced with http://news.sbs.co.kr (a news portal under "© SBS&SBS Contents Hub") most likely a video screenshot, considering also (as an example) http://news.sbs.co.kr/news/endPage.do?news_id=N1001773301 Gunnex (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, there is no freedom of panorama in South Korea anyway. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}, converted to File:WP April 2011, Editor Survey, Negative feedback.png, no reason to keep JPG version. Leyo 10:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, redundant. Taivo (talk) 13:53, 20 August 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) 11:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is ticket:2015072010022906. Working on it. Natuur12 (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the request cannot be open forever. If the OTRS-permission arrives, then the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 14:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Reproduction of a photo purportedly from 1968, possibly from Ireland. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, photo of photo, the uploader's only contribution. Own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Reproduction of a photo of unknown authorship and copyright status. Storkk (talk) 11:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Own work is unlikely. Taivo (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stas1995 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope Yann (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, would be in scope, but this is small photo without metadata and the uploader's only contribution, I delete it as probable copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This head reliquary is a 3D object so that the licence is invalid. Ras67 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, unfortunately permission from photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Inferior version of file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Phonpoom4.png Voltteri (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Reproduction of work by artist born in 1950. Storkk (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Collage of copyrighted book covers. Storkk (talk) 12:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
The file is indeed a collage of of book covers from copywritten books published by author Sheikh Anta Diop. The original file was uploaded in good faith and has been adaptaed and reuploaded with disclaimer stating that the book cover collage is not endorsed by the authors or licensors of the publications. Addtional information is added to the page hosting the image attributing the works to the rightful copyright owners. The intent of this image is educational and inspirational and to help promote and link back to the work done by the Author. (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2015 (CET)
- Hi @Josephtatepo: . Thanks for responding, unfortunately collages, remixes and other Derivative Works, while they may have their own copyright, are also subject to the copyrights of the underlying works. Please see the policies at COM:DW and COM:L. You may not have been aware that a) you are claiming to be the copyright holder, and b) that you are licensing the file in such a way that other people can take it and use it in, for example, a commercial work? (This last item is a prerequisite for a license to be commons-compatible!) Storkk (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, fair use is prohibited in Commons. Taivo (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Watermarked "(C) aixplan": uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. As the description "auf einem Hinweisschild im Aachener Wald" states, this photo shows a map on an information board installed in open space (actually the forest) in Germany, whereby it is covered by the freedom-of-panorama exception in copyright law of Germany. I've added the FoP-tag to the file. The assertion of "own work" refers to the photo of the overall board content, though I agree, {{Self-photographed}} would have been a better choice. --Túrelio (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It is my understanding that under German Panoramafreiheit that the author must be properly attributed. @Túrelio: do you believe that the watermark on the photo is correctly and sufficiently attributing the original author(s) of the map? Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I have doubts about whether the uploader is the photographer, given the watermark... That could just be me, though. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- I've looked more closely at the photograph, and I'm not really positive about the copyright notice in either direction. Given the precedents set by 99% of the other FoP pictures we keep, I'm not sure that argument holds much water either (though I think it probably should). I'm not going to withdraw, but wouldn't be surprised if this closed in either direction. Cheers, Storkk (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, really difficult choice, but I think, that German freedom of panorama covers the map. I'll try to fix the description. I did not see any watermark. Taivo (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was copied from ukwiki. The source is iffy, and I would tag it {{Npd}}, however even if the source releases the file as stated, the subject is a modern building in Ukraine, where there is no general Freedom of Panorama exception. Note that the only minor exception (for current events and news reporting) does not apply here. Storkk (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, I was not able to make sure, when the house was built. Maybe in 1990s. There is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Taivo (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
EXIF credits a "FABIANA SILVA", but uploader is a Vanessa Sousa Rosa (talk · contribs). If uploader is the copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete file:Jonathan Aires.jpg due to same reason. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Subject died in 1926, however without a source we cannot be sure that the photographer died before 1945, so copyright status is unknown. Storkk (talk) 14:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tu_per_tu Voltteri (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is in public domain in Italy, but due to URAA not in USA. The file will be restored in 2079, when 95 years passes from publishing. Taivo (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tu_per_tu Voltteri (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is in public domain in Italy, but due to URAA not in USA. The file will be restored in 2079, when 95 years passes from publishing. Taivo (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tu_per_tu Voltteri (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is in public domain in Italy, but due to URAA not in USA. The file will be restored in 2079, when 95 years passes from publishing. Taivo (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tu_per_tu Voltteri (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is in public domain in Italy, but due to URAA not in USA. The file will be restored in 2079, when 95 years passes from publishing. Taivo (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Screenshot from the copyrighted film https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_tu_per_tu Voltteri (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the file is in public domain in Italy, but due to URAA not in USA. The file will be restored in 2079, when 95 years passes from publishing. Taivo (talk) 15:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This appears to be either promotional material for a television series or a screen shot of a television series. Sourse claimed to be "own work", which is unlikely. Possible COM:COPYVIO. Voltteri (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Source Facebook. No Permission via OTRS. M. Krafft (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hwangjy9 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: This file is not Buzzbuzzwili's. Bellow the COM:TOO? Then, just change the license to {{PD-Textlogo}} Amitie 10g (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept, textlogo. Taivo (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Lesless as Copyvio (db-copyvio). No FOP in Russia, converted to DR- Amitie 10g (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Thank You. 1. No FoP in Russia according to monuments (end of XX century). 2. Author of photo and uploader - two different persons. 3. There is © on source page. 4. Please, watch other photos of this uploader. Lesless (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, per Lesless. I delete all the uploader's other contributions also due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Это изображение НЕ сквера им. А. Петрова. Таких ворот там и в помине нет. Зато есть каменные скульптуры. 62.141.114.94 15:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Это вид на сквер имени Андрея Петрова через ворота у входа в музей граммофонов Дерябкина (к северу от сквера). Брандмауэр напротив. видный на фотографии, принадлежит дому Бенуа (Каменноостровский 26-28) и ограничивает сквер с юга. Пойдите и посмотрите. Для этого пройдите от Каменноостровского мимо каменных скульптур и поверните направо ко входу в музей. А номинировать на удаление по той причине, что Вы не узнали место (из-за своей невнимательноти), - вообще нонсенс. Potekhin (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Обратите также внимание на дату фотографии - 2008 год. Часть каменных скульптур была там поставлена позже. Potekhin (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I kindly ask somebody of the Wikipedia administrators to close this nomination, because the declared reason for deletion is completely invalid, as I explained above: the nominator claimed that the photo depicts not the place described in the caption, but this claim is erroneous. Thanking you, Potekhin (talk) 16:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, There is freedom of panorama in Russia for architecture, but not for sculpture.
В России существует ru:свобода панорамы для архитектуры, но не для скульптуры. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: DW of packaging images. Thibaut120094 (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, Is there an issue with this photo? I took the photo myself. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc60657 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, COM:PACKAGING does not allow the photo into Commons without OTRS-permission from company representative. Another solution is to crop the packaging away. Taivo (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy IJReid (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Does this include images taken within buildings? -Mariomassone (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- See Commons:Freedom of Panorama#Italy. All photographs of structures and objects are within copyright (unless the author died over 70 y before the photograph was uploaded to commons). IJReid (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
See talk. This is problematic enough it serves to miseducate. Should we keep it just the same? If so, at least we shouldn't be using it on wikipedia the way we're doing. Elvey (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: DR opened in File Talk page by mistake? Also, file in use, so no reason for deleting neither the file nor the Talk page. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Please READ the reason given for deleting! Yes, meant to nominate the file itself. Will now.--Elvey (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete The image is misleading.
- I additionally nominate File:Lobe Pump.png. The problems are the same.
- I created two better verions do replace them:
- Delete Neither image is in use anymore.--Elvey (talk) 23:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of focus, unused and possibly copyvio of copyrighted coat of arms. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, the coat of arms may be even free, for example, due to age, but I delete it anyway, because this is a modern light sculpture. Freedom of panorama covers in Argentina only architecture, but not sculptures. Taivo (talk) 16:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Numerous copyright problems; did the students consent to this content's release under a free license? Is the software depicted free? ViperSnake151 (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Multimedia file of the day and uploaded in 2010 (whi thye file has not been nominated before becoming the Multimedia file of the day?). Non-free elements may be de minimis. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: No, it takes up a significant portion of the frame. This is not de minimis. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
duplicate picture Abbottscountrywide (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Duplicate file not provided. Please use {{Duplicate}} and remember to provide the other file's filename. Pitke (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
How old is the house? Yann (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Peu importe à mon avis : on peut la considérer comme « de minimis ». - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Per COM:CHARACTER, even though this film was not renewed, it is still a derivative of an earlier work (the Mickey Mouse character) and its distribution is still subject to the character's copyright. The Warner Bros v Avela ruling from 2011 confirmed that, and there was a person who was fined $500,000 for attempting to distribute cels of this very film (see http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/22/business/fi-mickey22/2 ) since it was still derivative of the still-copyrighted character. This could be undeleted in 2024 at the earliest, or perhaps 2029 (depends on if it is derivative of the Mickey Mouse character from Steamboat Willie, or if it also uses elements added by intermediate films which would still be under copyright). Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The article of the LA Times says two things : (1) "the Disneys failed to renew copyright claims on that film" and (2) Brown was prohibited in 2008 to "market recreated animation cels" from that film. This should be related to the Warner Bros vs Avela litigation where "Warner Bros. contends that Avela has extracted images from the public domain materials and used them in new ways that infringe the copyrights in the associated films" [5]. I agree that it has been ruled "recreation" of cels is subject to the character's copyright, but the film itself is in the public domain. This may call for a warning on the use of the media file, such as 'beware the characters are copyrighted', but not for a deletion. From a broader perspective, this would not be the only case of a PD film incorporating non PD elements. — Racconish 📥 06:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The lack of copyright on the movie did not make the Mickey Mouse character public domain, just the new expression in the movie. If any parts of the movie (or cels, recreated or directly copied) are derivative of the character, then distribution is still controlled by the copyright of the character. Same issue as in Russell v. Price, where a movie was not renewed, but the play it was based on had been renewed, and thus distribution of the movie was still prohibited. The Warner Bros v Avela case reached the same conclusion with the Tom & Jerry reproductions. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The same is mentioned in this William Patry blog post; several middle episodes of the Andy Griffith Show were not renewed on time, but they were still ruled derivative of the character copyright established by the earlier (still-copyrighted) episodes, and could not be copied. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and no. I agree with you the lack of copyright on the movie does not make the Mickey Mouse character public domain, but this is not what is at stake here. There is no more copyright on this film which has fallen in the public domain and the characters of the film are copyrighted. Hence it is right to say this film is in the public domain. But I agree it would be better to add a warning this does not imply an absence of copyright on the characters. — Racconish 📥 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- There is no more copyright on the additional expression added by the film; that is the only expression which the copyright notice covered (and therefore that the lack of renewal released to the public domain). To the extent that the film copies expression from the character (or earlier still-copyrighted works), it is still a derivative work, and is still subject to the copyright of the original (which as you say remains valid), and as such, cannot be distributed. We do not have a license for the underlying copyright. Courts have now ruled repeatedly (and the 1909 Copyright Act basically said the same) that the copyright status of a derivative work does not change in any way the copyright status of the underlying work, so that remains intact, and the film remains a derivative work of a still-existing copyright. Some have argued that it should dedicate to the public domain at least as much expression of the original as is seen, but that is not how courts have ruled. Courts have only ruled that it served to publish any elements of an unpublished underlying work, such that copyright could not be made infinite by using this argument with an unpublished underlying work (which used to never lose copyright), but with a published underlying work the copyright of the original remains and still applies to derivative works. The Warner Bros v Avela ruled that even exact copies of Tom & Jerry posters could not be used for similar reasons, since the posters were published after the character copyright was published, and though the posters did not have a copyright notice, it was only the small amount of additional expression in the posters (over and above the general depiction of the cartoon characters) which lost its copyright. The Russell vs Price decision was exactly the same -- there was a copyrighted play, and a derivative movie which was not renewed, but distribution of the movie was still illegal because it was still a derivative work (of the play). Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- The one thing from the Warner Bros v. Avela ruling which might be the issue here was on the Wizard of Oz and Gone with the Wind posters. In those cases, the posters were published before the movies, so they were not derivative of anything, and therefore those can indeed be copied. The character copyright was created by the movies themselves though, so any use of them which deviated from exact copies -- such as the addition of a line from the movie -- ran the risk of evoking the character themselves and becoming a derivative work of the copyrighted character. Exact copies were allowed because those posters were not derivative works; they predated the character copyright. The quote you gave above came from that section of the ruling. In the Tom & Jerry section though, all but one of the posters in question came after the character copyright, and therefore were inherently derivative works. We also held above that the characters of Tom and Jerry are not in the public domain. In addition, because the characters achieved copyright protection through the short films before all but the first movie poster entered the public domain, and the later movie posters necessarily exhibit those characters, even the use of any movie poster but the first requires Warner Bros.’s authorization. That is unfortunately the parallel situation here -- the Mad Doctor came after the copyrighted character was published, and is still a derivative work, and any use still requires Disney's authorization. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have to point out the situation here is quite different from the Avela case, which concerned public domain publicity material of a copyrighted film. But if your point is the fact this film is in the public domain does not imply the characters are, I agree. Why don't we try to find a constructive consensus on the wording of a caveat to clarify the fact the characters are not in the public domain ? — Racconish 📥 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Because it's not just a caveat... copyright law gives the authors of underlying works control over derivative works. And the Mad Doctor film is a derivative work of the Mickey Mouse character. Or do you not think it is? All additional expression added by this film did become public domain, but that is not enough for us to distribute -- some expression is still copied from earlier Mickey Mouse films, and that expression did not become PD by the lack of renewal; it remains copyrighted. It's like a photo of a copyrighted sculpture where we have a license for the photo but not the sculpture. The face that the photo became PD before the sculpture doesn't change the derivative rights of the sculptor.
- The part you quoted was the Warner Bros claim, but the actual ruling was a bit different (and for us, critically different). They ruled that Warner Bros didn't even need to allow straight copying of derivative works, even if copyright had lapsed on the secondary work. The court did say that their statement as you quoted above amounted for authorization for that one particular use for Avela for those posters -- i.e. that became the license, so Avela was not guilty of infringement for a couple of the uses in question -- but that does not apply for anyone other than Avela. Anyone else would still need authorization from Warner Bros to distribute even exact copies of the Tom & Jerry posters which were first published after the original short film. It was only works which were published before the character copyright was created which can be copied without authorization. That is the distinction in the ruling given in the part I quoted. The Pygmalion film was the same basic ruling -- even though the film itself was sort of "public domain" because its copyright was not renewed (just like Mad Doctor), it still wasn't really public domain since the author of the play still had a copyright on the underlying work, which was not affected by the movie going out of copyright, so distributing the film was still copyright infringement. Only part of the movie became PD, basically, and it's still not legal to distribute the whole thing. That to me is the exact situation here -- I'm sure there are many frames or even clips which don't involve Mickey Mouse, and as long as they only contain the new expression added by that film, those parts are probably OK. But any parts which involve the Mickey Mouse character are still derivative and still can't be copied. As the Patry article states, it's a situation where "public domain" really isn't "public domain". It kinda sucks, but there have been multiple court rulings at this point which say that, and I'm not aware of any court cases which went the other way. A derivative work, by definition, involves some expression copied from an earlier work combined with new expression. It is only the latter part which is covered by the copyright of the derivative work, and it is only that latter part which becomes public domain if that copyright lapses. The part which was copied from the earlier work remains copyrighted. Carl Lindberg (talk) 00:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I do understand your concern, but I still disagree. Yes, according to section 7 of the 1909 act, the publication of Mad Doctor and afterwards its falling into the public domain did not affect prior copyrights on the characters and yes, this provision gave legal basis to forbid the publication of cels taken from that film after it has fallen in the public domain. But no, we cannot deny this film as a whole is above the threshold of originality and was entitled to copyright per the same text. We have to live with the fact it is an original work of art as a whole although it incorporates some preexisting elements such as the graphic identification of some characters in some cels. I therefore repeat my proposition to clarify in the 'permissions' section the fact that although this film has fallen into the public domain, some of its elements deriving from previous copyrighted works may still be protected. I suggest at this point we let other contributors express their point of view. — Racconish 📥 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it might be time for others to chime in. Most of what you say above is perfectly true... obviously Mad Doctor had a great deal of new copyrightable expression and that copyright expired after 28 years. The problem, as I see it, that the "elements deriving from previous copyrighted works" means we also need a license for those elements, just like any other derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. in the mean time, trying to clarify this not-so-clear matter, I have added a note to the file description. Feel free to improve the wording if you are inspired
. — Racconish 📥 09:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Fine. in the mean time, trying to clarify this not-so-clear matter, I have added a note to the file description. Feel free to improve the wording if you are inspired
- Yes, it might be time for others to chime in. Most of what you say above is perfectly true... obviously Mad Doctor had a great deal of new copyrightable expression and that copyright expired after 28 years. The problem, as I see it, that the "elements deriving from previous copyrighted works" means we also need a license for those elements, just like any other derivative work. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Carl, I do understand your concern, but I still disagree. Yes, according to section 7 of the 1909 act, the publication of Mad Doctor and afterwards its falling into the public domain did not affect prior copyrights on the characters and yes, this provision gave legal basis to forbid the publication of cels taken from that film after it has fallen in the public domain. But no, we cannot deny this film as a whole is above the threshold of originality and was entitled to copyright per the same text. We have to live with the fact it is an original work of art as a whole although it incorporates some preexisting elements such as the graphic identification of some characters in some cels. I therefore repeat my proposition to clarify in the 'permissions' section the fact that although this film has fallen into the public domain, some of its elements deriving from previous copyrighted works may still be protected. I suggest at this point we let other contributors express their point of view. — Racconish 📥 04:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- I have to point out the situation here is quite different from the Avela case, which concerned public domain publicity material of a copyrighted film. But if your point is the fact this film is in the public domain does not imply the characters are, I agree. Why don't we try to find a constructive consensus on the wording of a caveat to clarify the fact the characters are not in the public domain ? — Racconish 📥 21:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes and no. I agree with you the lack of copyright on the movie does not make the Mickey Mouse character public domain, but this is not what is at stake here. There is no more copyright on this film which has fallen in the public domain and the characters of the film are copyrighted. Hence it is right to say this film is in the public domain. But I agree it would be better to add a warning this does not imply an absence of copyright on the characters. — Racconish 📥 16:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete — I agree with Carl, when a film falls into the public domain due to lack of renewal this does not automatically also place any separately registered copyrighted works depicted in the movie into the public domain, only the new creative elements unique to the film become public domain. For example, imagine an artist sculpts a statue in 1928, registers its copyright, and puts the statue on display in his home. In 1933 a filmmaker, with the permission of the artist, creates a short film lovingly depicting the statue with a voice-over describing the features of the statue. If the filmmaker failed to renew the film's copyright, but the artist did renew the statue's copyright, can I start selling copies of the film without the permission of the artist? No, I can not. The film remains a derivative work of the copyrighted statue, even if the unique creative elements of the film have fallen into the public domain due to the lack of renewal. I could, however, sell copies of the audio track to the film, as that does not infringe upon the copyright to the statue. —RP88 (talk) 16:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Undelete in 2027 due to Pluto character created in 1931. —holly {chat} 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.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}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Metapolis.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}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_h-t,_78x67.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_131115-N-TQ272-162_(10882735666).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, mostly per RP88. For example, the photos have double copyright: of photographer and of author of depicted object. They both must be free to be suitable for Commons. Here the other (derivative work) has fallen into public domain, the first (of what is depicted) has not. You can argue, that the film is free: you can show and copy it without free of charge, yes, that's right. But derivative works from the film are not allowed, because Mickey Mouse is not in public domain. Commons does not allow files, where derivative works are prohibited. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Once again, the film features Pluto and must wait until either 2027 to be uploaded. See this deletion request. SDudley (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: Previously deleted. — Racconish 💬 21:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Please, look here for better quality copy of the exactly same stamp. Nickpo (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Eh... different physical stamp (the perforations are different), and this one was uploaded in 2007 so was probably used in articles and is part of article history. It looks like the other linked image was a duplicate of the original upload of this one, and lesser quality, so it should have been deleted as a duplicate, but with your new higher-quality upload today they are no longer exact duplicates and the other is higher quality. Doesn't hurt anything to keep both though. Carl Lindberg (talk) 02:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use in articles at all, look to the footer of its page for notification about. Nickpo (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use is no reason to delete. I suspect it was used in articles. And yes it was, for many years, until you changed to your new upload (which is fine, but really this one should be kept, as going back in page history would show this one). There could also be links from outside Wikimedia (that is one of the purposes of Commons, as well). There's no real benefit to deletion -- we are not saving disk space. It's here if people want to use it, for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Check it for my changes. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that you removed usage of this image from a Wikipedia article. That does not mean this should be deleted. It is part of the article's history (for years) if people go back and look at historical versions, and URLs to the image are likely in use around the Internet. It is quite simply not worth deleting this image. Commons is not about curating; it is about accumulating as much free material as we can. There harm in deletion; there is hardly any harm in keeping. We do not simply keep the "best" photo of a given subject; we keep all of them, and let galleries or Wikipedia articles or whatever pick the best ones for their purposes. Yes, we try to avoid having exact duplicates, but this is not an exact duplicate -- it is a separate scan of a different physical stamp. It wouldn't make much sense to have both on a Wikipedia article, but it can make sense to host scans of both on Commons. If they had both been uploaded at the same time... closer question, but given that this was the primary image for many years, the harm to the project (any any potential re-users across the Internet) far outweighs the similarity issue, to me (and I'm not sure I'd delete even on that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- What article? Please, diff. Nickpo (talk) 17:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I see that you removed usage of this image from a Wikipedia article. That does not mean this should be deleted. It is part of the article's history (for years) if people go back and look at historical versions, and URLs to the image are likely in use around the Internet. It is quite simply not worth deleting this image. Commons is not about curating; it is about accumulating as much free material as we can. There harm in deletion; there is hardly any harm in keeping. We do not simply keep the "best" photo of a given subject; we keep all of them, and let galleries or Wikipedia articles or whatever pick the best ones for their purposes. Yes, we try to avoid having exact duplicates, but this is not an exact duplicate -- it is a separate scan of a different physical stamp. It wouldn't make much sense to have both on a Wikipedia article, but it can make sense to host scans of both on Commons. If they had both been uploaded at the same time... closer question, but given that this was the primary image for many years, the harm to the project (any any potential re-users across the Internet) far outweighs the similarity issue, to me (and I'm not sure I'd delete even on that). Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
- Check it for my changes. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use is no reason to delete. I suspect it was used in articles. And yes it was, for many years, until you changed to your new upload (which is fine, but really this one should be kept, as going back in page history would show this one). There could also be links from outside Wikimedia (that is one of the purposes of Commons, as well). There's no real benefit to deletion -- we are not saving disk space. It's here if people want to use it, for whatever reason. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- No use in articles at all, look to the footer of its page for notification about. Nickpo (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep: A better resolution is not a reason to delete because they are different images from different sources. Many images exist which have two or more copies, be they stamps, for example or , paintings, etc. There are many images that are not in use right now. What harm is there in keeping both? Ww2censor (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- It's easy to describe the goals of keeping two or more copies of Penny Black or British Guiana 1c magenta (or smth another). But we can't describe the hypothetic goal of keeping more than one copy of this stamp. There're no any varieties of it. Nickpo (talk) 15:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. IMHO it's just a silly unnecessary deletion waste-of-time nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- A weighty argument. Thanks. Nickpo (talk) 05:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- Whatever. IMHO it's just a silly unnecessary deletion waste-of-time nomination. Ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. Sure, it's a different physical stamp but it's still a duplicate. There is no benefit to keeping it. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually no this is different stamp. Yes it is from the same printing but if you inspect the perforations closely, especially the top left, you will see differences, so they are different stamps, proving this is NOT A DUPLICATE. And for rare stamps like this we should keep images of all the different examples we can find. Ww2censor (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Don't tell a stamp collector that those are duplicates. He/She will die instantly. :-) Different stamps, not duplicates. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
For all intents and purposes, a duplicate to File:Nepal-CIA WFB Map.png. The two should be merged. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom --ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep The file is still used in 3 projects and cannot be deleted in any other reason than copyright issues. Taivo (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Taivo: what? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The file must first be substituted in all projects, then nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- There is no rule saying that. If the file is deleted then the bots change to to the appropriate substitution.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- The file must first be substituted in all projects, then nominated for deletion. Taivo (talk) 11:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Taivo: what? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Processed as duplicate: 3 replacements done + redirect --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Not useful for educational purposes, out of project scope. —RP88 (talk) 05:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - per nom and Commons:Nudity.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 21:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep the quality is not so bad at all. The photo is big and has EXIF data. Taivo (talk) 13:28, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - Per Commons:Nudity unless the new images "Significantly different from existing files" then they should be deleted. The quality, size and EXIF data are irrelevant. THis image has nothing "New" compaired to other images at Category:Nude males and its subcategories.--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: OMG, a penis! :-)) Just another dick pic, nuttin new here. Not in scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Manx2 Flight 7100
[edit]"This file is in the public domain, because The image is part of an accident report, which along with its images was released into the public domain as used by many news agencies reporting on the final report." is not a real license. They are subject to Irish governmental copyright for 50 years. According to Wikipedia, the issuing department may be forced to provide a permissive license, but the work doesn't mention one. (I reluctantly added the CCTV images; I maintain that they are PD in the US as works without creative input from a human author, but don't know about Irish law.)
- File:CCTV images of the crash of Manx2 7100, Feb 2011.jpg
- File:Investigation structure, related to the crash of NM7100, February 2011.jpg
- File:Manx2 7100 aerial crash scene, Feb 2011.jpg
- File:Manx2 7100, Cabin following crash, Feb 2011.jpg
- File:The wreckage of Manx2 7100, Cork, Feb 2011.jpg
Prosfilaes (talk) 11:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The sculpture may not be free. Yann (talk) 23:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- The good question is : how old is this sculpture ? - Bzh-99 (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour Yann, et Bzh-99 j'ai trouvé quelques éléments de réponses sur le site "granitrose-tour":
- Le phare de granite rose se dresse au milieu des chaos granitiques formés par l’érosion du magma refroidi, puis modelés par l’action de la pluie, du sel des embruns et du vent. Son nom, phare de Mean Ruz, est issu de l’expression bretonne Men Ruz, qui signifie pierre rouge. Savez-vous que la construction du phare a été décidée grâce à une pétition lancée en 1856 par les habitants de Perros-Guirec et de Trégastel ? Dynamité par les troupes allemandes avant leur reddition en août 1944, l’édifice n’a pas toujours eu son aspect actuel. Lors de sa reconstruction en 1948, le granite rose a remplacé le granite gris d’origine (1860). En 1980, le phare a été automatisé.
- http://www.granitrose-tour.com/pois/rochers-et-phare-de-ploumanach
- Cela justirierait-il la suppression? Cordialement.- --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- A mon avis, le problème n'est pas le phare, mais la sculpture. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: unclear (c) status Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free license. The requirement to request permission before using is not compatible with Commons:Licensing#Acceptable licenses. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Anfrage zur Verhinderung der Löschung der Datei (Foto):
- Als unerfahrener User bitte ich um Aufklärung, wie man ein Foto richtig licensiert, dass nach Anfrage bei dem Eigentümer und Fotograph nur in minimierter Form (wie geschehen) veröffentlicht werden darf. Bei den Vorlagen zur Licensierung hab ich irgendwie nichts passendes gefunden.
- Zur Aufklärung des Gesamtfalles; Als Angestellter des Unternehmens (Eigentümer des Fotos), wurde ich vom technischen Betriebsstellenleiter (Autor des Fotos), dem bekannt ist, dass ich ein User-Profil bei wiki besitze, gebeten, ein aktuelleres und aus einer besseren Perspektive geschossenes Foto einzustellen. Die original Foto-Datei (4,88MB) wurde mir zugesandt und durch mich minimiert (263kB). Die Minimierung erfolgte auf Grund sicherheitsrelevanten Details am Gebäude, die dadurch nicht mehr erkennbar sind.
Fragen:
- Wie lautet der richtige Vorgang um das Foto als nicht original, sondern als erlaubt geänderte (minimierte) Foto-Datei zu bezeichnen?
- Da die Minimierung von mir vollzogen worden ist, bin ich dann der neue Autor dieser Foto-Datei oder bleibt auch nach Minimierung der Fotograph weiterhin der Autor?
- Nach erneuter Anfrage beim Eigentümer gilt die Auflage zur schriftlichen Erlaubnis nur auf die origninal Foto-Datei, nicht auf die minimierte. Ist dann die minimierte Foto-Datei licensfrei?
- Muss der Autor (Fotograph) der Bild-Datei ein Wiki-Account besitzen und die Bild-Datei selber rein stellen oder ist es genehm dass jemand in Vetretung die Bild-Datei hochläd?
- Muss ich hier eigentlich auf englisch Antworten? Ich glaube der Google-Übersetzer würde in die Knie gehen, bei den Satzbauten.
--Tca-jimmy (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- Moving discussion to user talk. Keep open until 2015-9-1. Thx. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS recieved Didym (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
The "permission" is unfortunately inadequate. Free use, does not give explicit use for commercial purposes or for derivative works. 120.145.151.162 05:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Whym: Could you please have a look? Thanks! :) --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no free shizhao (talk) 13:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Restored: as pr [6]. Yann (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests&oldid=171763718#File:P-1_02l.jpg){kind=link}