Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/08/09
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
No license. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. Source page says "Copyright Richard Stone". DrKiernan (talk) 08:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 14:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Obvious COM:COPYVIO; source is google images, no license. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. JuTa 14:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
poster, derivative work without permission 太刻薄 (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by De728631 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Not a NASA photo but courtesy of the New Mexico State University: http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/graphics.html. NASA is the source, but not the author as indicated in the description. May be {{PD-Mexico}}? Amitie 10g (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
File:Clyde Tombaugh image.jpg is a cropped version of this photograph. I'm nominating it for deletion, too. De728631 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- The copyright on this photograph ran out ca. 2000. Seventy years is the legal limit in the United States. After that point, the photograph is Public Domain independent of the copyright holder. Just FYI but New Mexico State University is in the United States of America, State of New Mexico (its between Texas and Arizona). It doesn't matter what user De728631 tagged the file as. You have only two choices: withdraw this deletion request ASAP before some Custodian goofs and deletes this, or close as Keep ASAP, ditto. --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know where you got this number from. The copyright term for works in the US depends on the year of first publication. 70 years do occur, but only for unpublished works (life of the author + 70 years), works registered for copyright between 1978 to 1 March 1989 (70 years after death of the author) and works created after 1977 (obviously not applicable here) [1]. There is no PD-old-70 or something depending on the creation of the photo. Instead it is on the uploader to provide evidence that this image is out of copyright. There are a few possibilities though that this is the case:
- The image was published before 1978 without a copyright notice (this would have to include the backside of the hardcopy). The version visible on the NASA page though does not have a copyright mark.
- Published between 1978 and 1 March 1989 without a notice and registration within 5 years.
- Published before 1963 with registration but not renewed.
- The author died shortly after taking the photo and the image was published without notice between 1 January 1978 and 1 March 1989.
- I don't know where you got this number from. The copyright term for works in the US depends on the year of first publication. 70 years do occur, but only for unpublished works (life of the author + 70 years), works registered for copyright between 1978 to 1 March 1989 (70 years after death of the author) and works created after 1977 (obviously not applicable here) [1]. There is no PD-old-70 or something depending on the creation of the photo. Instead it is on the uploader to provide evidence that this image is out of copyright. There are a few possibilities though that this is the case:
- So, does anyone know when this was first published? De728631 (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do we even know with any certainty that it was ever published as non-publication means a 120 year copyright. BTW, the other image is being discussed here. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "BTW, the other image is being discussed here". Nope, that is File:Clyde W. Tombaugh.jpeg which is basically a larger version of the GIF image. And being on that NASA website also counts as an act of publication, so that would be the most recent date to consider. De728631 (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Do we even know with any certainty that it was ever published as non-publication means a 120 year copyright. BTW, the other image is being discussed here. Ww2censor (talk) 21:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another FYI: "As a youngster, his interest in astronomy was encouraged by his father and uncle. [...] In 1928 Tombaugh made a nine-inch telescope that enabled him to make very accurate and detailed sketches of Jupiter and Mars. Seeking advice from professional astronomers, he sent his sketches to the Lowell Observatory in Flagstaff, Arizona."[1]This quote occurs in the article referenced next to their copy of this same photograph. Also, the person who took the photograph in 1928 owned the copyright as soon as it was taken, whether published at the time or not. That is the copyright that has run out. The Kansas State Historical Society does not own any copyright to the photograph because they did not take the photograph.
- From the Wikimedia commons page on Public Domain: "The only exceptions to this is if the author wishes to remain anonymous or in certain cases where the author is unknown but enough information exists to show the work is truly in the public domain (such as the date of creation/publication). [...] for works first published before 1964, copyright lasts 28 years after publication (and is therefore currently expired)"[2] Tombaugh probably sent the photograph or another one similar along with his sketches to Lowell Observatory in 1928 (first publication date). He started at the Observatory on 15 January 1929. --Marshallsumter (talk) 22:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Also, the person who took the photograph in 1928 owned the copyright as soon as it was taken, whether published at the time or not. That is the copyright that has run out." That may not be true. WP:Public domain#Unpublished works states that until 1978, unpublished unregistered works were a matter of state law in the US, and most states granted a perpetual copyright until an eventual publication. The fact that Tombaugh sent his sketches of Jupiter and Mars ot the observatory does not mean that this photograph was included. And the Kansapedia where the authors are "solely responsible for its content", and not the Kansas State Historical Society (who don't even edit the articles submitted to them) doesn't look very indicative for the publication status of this photo of Tombaugh. Their description of the image is rather limited and, again, the responsibility for observing copyrights and publication permissions is passed on to the uploader. The Academy of Achievement has a copy of the photo too, which is credited as "courtesy of Clyde Tombaugh". Anyhow, I checked the post-1978 records at the U.S. Copyright Office and also the 1928 and 1929 Catalogs of Copyright Entries. Neither of them mentions a "Tombaugh". So there is a chance that although this photo was evidently published someday it was never registered for copyright. For a post-1989 publication this would still mean a copyright term of life of the author + 70 years. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Tombaugh probably posted the photo where he worked at the Lowell Observatory in 1929. I went through the website to see if they were exhibiting it, but all the photos are more recent using their instruments. But its first publication date is probably when he worked there. An unregistered copyright is still a copyright. If you want to delete the image, do so. I've already uploaded it to Wikiversity as Fair Use. The benefit of doubt in view of the age of the photo (1928) puts it in the Public Domain beyond reasonable doubt, unless a living relative proves otherwise. Commons is not going to receive a take-down notice for an image posted on a NASA website. But, no one can stop you from deleting it as there are two of you to one of me. --Marshallsumter (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Keep I tend to agree with Marshallsumter. Not the part that we won't get a take-down-notice. If or if not is not relevant. Looking at the photograph I assume that this photo has been published w/o registration. Either ~ 1930 as junior astronomer or shortly after. This means the appropriate license would be {{PD-US-no notice}}. See COM:HIRTLE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hedwig in Washington (talk • contribs)
- I've applied the recommended license to the full image File:ClydeTombaugh2.gif and to the cropped image File:Clyde Tombaugh image.jpg from the earlier one. Perhaps this is what's needed to close this discussion as keep with removal of the deletion templates. --Marshallsumter (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
References
[edit]- ↑ Kansas Historical Society (June 2003). Clyde Tombaugh. Kansas State Historical Society. Retrieved on 2015-07-14.
- ↑ Material in the public domain, In: Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc (22 June 2015). Retrieved on 2015-07-14.
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, this image was kept before after a deletion request, but now there is a much better version at File:Clyde_W._Tombaugh.jpeg. This file is no longer in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Duplicate. Yann (talk) 18:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Doodle with a spammy file description. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 21:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history of uploading copyright violations with false authorship claims. Looks like a screenshot of a non-free television broadcast. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. Yann (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect. Missing a carbonyl (should be amide not amine in central ring). Many alternatives in Category:Bromazepam DMacks (talk) 04:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: The uploader replaced it with a correct version. Ed (Edgar181) 19:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]unlikely to be own work / out of project scope
- File:VIP.jpg
- File:Indian food @ Next 2.jpg
- File:Singh @ next.jpg
- File:@ next 2.jpg
- File:Long service Award.jpg
- File:Hon'ble Minister of External Affairs Smt-Sushma Swaraj and Indian Ambassador - 6.jpg
- File:Unvc9Hyiv0r9HkKtcqvpAosxOxkjvsXe6qy-X7Bsjvkw234-h207-p-no.jpg
- File:Ballroom @ Shangri-la.jpg
- File:XWMTsNSW2tkojLhxi7dz9vV7N4lt5REFcwd7hcvnTFkw213-h229-p-no.jpg
- File:Award 10.jpg
- File:Award 5.jpg
- File:Ashoka.jpg
- File:@ Balroom Shangri-la.jpg
- File:GM @.jpg
- File:66 republic day.jpg
- File:Dusit Bangok.jpg
- File:Award at Dushit Thani Bangkok.jpg
- File:Indian Embassy @.jpg
- File:Award @ Dust Thani Bangkok.png
- File:บุฟเฟ่ดินเนอร์ วันศุกร์ แชงกรีลากรุงเทพ Dinner Buffet NEXT2 Cafe ShangriLa Bangkok 23.jpg
- File:บุฟเฟ่ดินเนอร์ วันศุกร์ แชงกรีลากรุงเทพ Dinner Buffet NEXT2 Cafe ShangriLa Bangkok 41.jpg
- File:Pm @ shangri-la.jpg
- File:Award @ Myanmar Ashoka.jpg
- File:5 year 2 shangri-la.jpg
- File:@ the Boat.jpg
- File:Germany at Maharaja.jpg
- File:@ Next @ Bangkok.jpg
- File:Indian Embassy.jpg
- File:Indian embassy.jpg
- File:Indian Food @ next 2.jpg
- File:Award Yangoon.jpg
- File:Indian food Promotion.jpg
- File:@ boat.jpg
- File:@ Next -2.jpg
- File:Big function @ chianMai.jpg
Didym (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Herby talk thyme 07:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Speedy Deleted: Many of the uploads are clear copyright violations, and other include false claims on authorship. On balance it is clear that the uploader has failed across his uploads to give proper attribution/permission information. WJBscribe (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope Commons is not a social media site.
- File:CDP gold.jpg
- File:March 22 Award.jpg
- File:Next2-Shangri-La-Hotel-.jpg
- File:VIP.jpg
- File:Award 1.jpg
- File:Main Kitchen.jpg
- File:Next 2.jpg
- File:CHAI 2.jpg
- File:The Sunday Brunch.jpg
✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 13:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chefsingh. Obvious sockpuppet is obvious. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~ Moheen (keep talking) 20:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chef Lokendra Bangkok (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:CSD#F10 (personal photos by non-contributors)
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 7.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 6.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 5.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 4.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 3.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh 2.jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh .jpg
- File:Chef Lokendra Singh.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 13:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Unused personal picture, out of project scope Fenerli1978 (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Vanity. Self promotion Fixertool (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the uploader. Unuseful redirect (it was a stupid date error from myself) Tangopaso (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete: album front cover with no evidence of the author or copyright status. Ww2censor (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Copyvio.--Fanghong (talk) 09:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eine erste hai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:An unplugged w a lamp 2013-10-30-153852one.jpg
- File:First improvisation.webm
- File:'a corner of my eye' (in a theme of 'matrix' franchise).jpg
- File:'redundand rib' 2015-01-08-221500.jpg
- File:'give me a cran- and enigma to mind to' Screenshot - 040315 - 18-35-12.png
- File:'oh kiss-o-fire' Screenshot - 040315 - 19-08-10.png
- File:'"exit music (for a film)" --we hope that you choke; we hope that you choke' Screenshot - 050615 - 09-38-39.png
- File:'google' plus 'nestle' pars to (or 'their brand new slogan').pdf
- File:'upper limit' 2015-05-12-112035.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Matiia (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Matiia (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:52, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Te slecht van kwaliteit Haagschebluf (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request shortly after upload. JuTa 05:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Authorship claims ranging from unlikely to obviously fraudulent based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, the nature of several of the images, previous publications, and the uploader's history of uploading multiple copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims. File descriptions like "sadfdasasd" show the uploader clearly thinks that having provide correct and truthful information during the upload process is an optional nuisance.
- File:CopaMX-.jpg
- File:CopaMX.jpg
- File:LigaMX-.jpg
- File:LigaMX.jpg
- File:Americaclub.jpg
- File:DANZ.jpg
- File:Copavenezuela.jpg
- File:Fdsdfsfdsfdsdfsdfs.jpg
- File:Poderoso1.jpg
- File:Dim-7.jpg
- File:Emelec.jpg
- File:Esppor.jpg
- File:Purovinotint.jpg
- File:HINCHADA2.jpg
- File:Hinchada1.jpg
- File:Equidad.jpg
- File:Demonios.jpg
- File:Huracan32.jpg
- File:Huracan1.jpg
- File:Burra3.jpg
- File:Burra1.jpg
- File:Burra2.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 08:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Loranozdemir (talk · contribs)
[edit]Book covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Ein Kurde im Mahlwerk des Übergangs 2.jpg
- File:Ein Kurde im Mahlwerk des Übergangs 1.jpg
- File:VZPOVED 2.jpg
- File:Legenda o Kurdech.png
- File:VZPOVED 1.jpg
- File:Yekta Uzunoglu , 2006.jpg
- File:Yekta Uzunoglu,Kurdish Institute.jpg
- File:Dr. Yekta Uzunoglu in Iraq.jpg
- File:Dr. Yekta Uzunoglu in european parliament.jpg
- File:Yekta Uzunoglu with Alexandr Vondra.jpg
- File:Yekta uzunoglu with Kardinal Joseph Höffner.jpg
- File:Mina Qazi and the German Princess Fürstin Marie Luise with yekta uzunoglu.jpg
- File:LETTRE AU PRES DENT DE LA REPUBL QUE TCHEQUE MR M LO ZEMAN SUR M.Dr.YEKTA UZUNOGLU.pdf
- File:With president Vaclav Havel.jpg
- File:Yekta Uzunoglu With president Shimon Peres.jpg
- File:Yektauzunoglu3.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Saveetri engg com (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
File:Propuesta de un Régimen Simplificado de Tributación Aplicable al Sector Informal Salvadoreño.pdf
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Oportunidadeschalate (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Greek Strategos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Magnaura of Constantinople.jpg
- File:Te 4-45, fond Zavod za urbanizem Maribor, Pokrajinski arhiv.jpg
- File:PAM, fond ZUM, 4-45 (streha).jpg
- File:Leto 1938 (TE 53, fond Zavod za urbanizem maribor, Pokrajinski arhiv Maribor).jpg
- File:Tsh-90-big.jpg
- File:Chalke Gate Reconstruction.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Joel peralta (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:LA ESTRUCTURA DEL FOTÓN, AMPLIADA 2015.pdf
- File:ESTRUCTURA DEL FOTON.pdf
- File:La pirámide y sus propiedades.jpg
- File:Modelo dipolo del fotón.jpg
- File:El quantum del espacio tiene forma piramidal.jpg
- File:Joel Perslts y el espacio cuantico..jpg
- File:Espacio continuo y cuantico.jpg
- File:TEORÍA DEL ESPACIO CUÁNTICO.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album/files storage. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused test images. Appear to be replaced by File:Fusion sol cycle3.png.
- File:Sublimation sol cycle2.svg
- File:Fusion sol cycle2.svg
- File:Fusion sol cycle1.svg
- File:Sublimation sol cycle1.svg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from non-free photos and music. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Milan01294 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons:Derivative works from non-free software screenshots.
- File:Videomilanj012.webm
- File:Slika 1 Milanj012.png
- File:Slika 2Milanj012.png
- File:Slika Milanj012.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from non-free software screenshots.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Buddhasenpatel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images.
- File:BETI SLOGAN.pdf
- File:ENIVIROMENT SLOGANS.pdf
- File:ENIVIROMENT SLOGANS TAGLINE GLOBAL WARMING.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bharattanks (talk · contribs)
[edit]Advisement. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Gas storage and transport tank.jpg
- File:LPG tank installation.jpg
- File:Design and Structural Analysis of LPG Tank - Bharat Tanks and Vessels.pdf
- File:LPG TANK.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Neojudgment (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and album covers. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Banco.jpg
- File:Nouveau modèle iPhone GA.ogg
- File:04-gangsters.jpg
- File:Gangsters-d-amour-1.jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (29).png
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (26).jpg
- File:Album Spirito.jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (43).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (63).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (8).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (6).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (5).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (4).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (2).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (1).jpg
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (3).png
- File:Gangsters d'Amour (21).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Replaced with File:Japanese Hiragana kyokashotai SU.svg Cougrimes (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please send the permission by the author to the OTRS-team Brackenheim (talk) 16:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please send the permission by the author to the OTRS-team Brackenheim (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Please send the permission by the author to the OTRS-team Brackenheim (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
These images of book covers and personal portraits were not created by the uploader, but they were all given self licenses. COM:EVID requires valid source and license for all uploaded images.
- File:Nafta na kopanině.jpg
- File:Město kamenného srdce.jpg
- File:Sedm hubených let.jpg
- File:Cvrček hrdina.jpg
- File:Cvrčkovy omalovánky.jpg
- File:O cvrčkovi tuláku.jpg
- File:Kůrka - Válka na jižní frontě.jpg
- File:Kořistníci našeho severu.jpg
- File:Bílé zlato stoupá.jpg
- File:Příběh stávkokaze Hornera.jpg
- File:Bílá krysa.jpg
- File:Sedlák hlavatý.jpg
- File:Václav Kůrka.JPG
- File:Svatební foto.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Steinsplitter (talk) 07:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
An unused image with no license. The file was formerly tagged because of no license, , which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with the wholesale removal of tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Image has no license. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Image has no license. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No license: Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This file has had to be tagged "no license" two times due to the removal of the tag. Besides no license, the image has no description, no date, no source and no author. The tag was formerly removedwithout fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g and the tag was restored by User:JuTa. I do not want the tag to be removed again - wasting everyone's time, and I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This file has had to be tagged "no license" two times due to the removal of the tag. Besides no license, the image has no author and the source is "family album"r. The tag was formerly removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g and the tag was restored by User:JuTa. I do not want the tag to be removed again - wasting everyone's time, and I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: multiple required info missing PumpkinSky talk 11:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This file has had to be tagged "no license" two times due to the removal of the tag. Besides no license, the image has no description, no date, no source and no author. The tag was formerly removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g and the tag was restored by User:JuTa. I do not want the tag to be removed again - wasting everyone's time, and I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep I added more details and a license. DrKiernan (talk) 08:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wonderful!
I withdraw my nomination because of the excellent editing by DrKiernan. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: nom withdrawn, concerns met PumpkinSky talk 11:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This file has had to be tagged "no license" two times due to the removal of the tag. Besides no license, the image has no description, no date, no source and no author. The tag was formerly removedwithout fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g and the tag was restored by User:JuTa. I do not want the tag to be removed again - wasting everyone's time, and I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
After i found and uploaded a larger version, I also found that we already had a better one on Commons (!), please see File:U-2 Spy Plane With Fictitious NASA Markings - GPN-2000-000112.jpg for the better one. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent upload. Low resolution. Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent upload. Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Copyright - plain photographic reproduction of a work made by in 1986 by an artist Wim Zuiderveld, born in 1950. The misspelling "Erts kade" instead of "Ertskade" makes it evident that Jhvanderiet is not Wim Zuiderveld or a representative of Zuiderveld. Paulbe (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect: two incorrect groups. Recent upload. Low resolution. Unused JPG; have correct SVG version (File:Carburazepam.svg) in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Not own work at all. Official poster of 1978 World Cup (see Google matches). As a piece of art, the poster is copyrighted in Argentina until 2028 according to Law 11,723 - art. 8, 28. - Fma12 (talk) 20:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Recent upload. Low resolution. Unused JPG; have SVG version (File:Flubromazolam.svg) in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
No license. No indication of license at source. This file was formerly tagged, but the tag was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no license PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not Scott Cawthon. 50.53.137.167 22:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
This picture is not of Scott Cawthon. Real pictures of Scott can be found here, here, and here. 50.53.137.167 22:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
More proof that this isn't Scott. 50.53.137.167 22:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Scott's twitter image is now a picture of him. Rubiks-disaster 08/12/2015 @ 7:21pm (UTC)
Deleted: improperly identified photo PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Doubtful own work, no EXIF data. Besides, the trophy is copyrighted (it was released in 2008). - Fma12 (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: not own work, trophy copyvio PumpkinSky talk 23:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
the wikipedia page for this file was deleted. the file was uploaded by accident and will not needed any more. it is also the wrong logo. Kornerflakes (talk) 11:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
not own work 181.1.174.160 03:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
No indication that the uploader is the copyright holder Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 06:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:39, 17 August 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. Gunnex (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
This "formal picture" appears in this lawyer's web site and no OTRS release approval has been received. It has no place in the Commons in this situation. Ldorfman (talk) 08:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS.. Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS. Marchjuly (talk) 10:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS. Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS. Marchjuly (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS. Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Image claims to be licensed under Creative Commons 4.0, but there is nothing on the source website to imdicate that it has been released as such by the copyright holder. There is also no mention of any permission being sent to OTRS. Marchjuly (talk) 10:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
com:advert. Unused logo McZusatz (talk) 11:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect. Florazolam has a bromo not nitro group. Have File:Florazolam445.JPG that is chemically correct. DMacks (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Flubromazolam.svg is correct, high quality version. Ed (Edgar181) 01:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Chemically incorrect. Florazolam has a bromo not nitro group. Have File:Molécule Florazolam.jpg that is chemically correct. DMacks (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: File:Flubromazolam.svg is correct, high quality version. Ed (Edgar181) 01:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Long unused GIF with small size and missing stereochemistry; have many PNG and SVG alternatives at Category:Paroxetine DMacks (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Missing stereochemical information at one of the two stereocenters. The named compound is a single diastereomer per en:Paroxetine and database links therein. I replaced its uses with File:Paroxetine-2D-skeletal.svg DMacks (talk) 05:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Ed (Edgar181) 01:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a CD cover. . HombreDHojalata.talk 08:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I am the creator of the CD cover shown and I personally gave the uploader rights to upload for the use of a Wikipedia page. No copyright violation has been committed.
Deleted: Done by EugeneZelenko Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
It is a CD cover. . HombreDHojalata.talk 08:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by EugeneZelenko Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Steinsplitter Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}...recent upload with low resolution/small size and JPG artifacts that is worse than the several SVG we have at Category:Bromazepam DMacks (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 16:15, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
{{BadJPG}}...recent upload with low resolution/small size, large magins, and JPG artifacts that is worse than the several SVG we have at Category:Bromazepam DMacks (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Not very large, unused JPG; have long had File:3-Hydroxyphenazepam.svg in use at the articles for this substance. DMacks (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- The uploader is clearly neither the author for the purpose of the laws of copyright, nor the copyright holder, regardless of whether he is the named identity-cardholder or otherwise, or whether he had ever had this identity card otherwise in his personal possession or otherwise. The authors of this work for the purpose of the laws of copyright are clearly (1.) Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, in right of Her Government in the United Kingdom, (2.) Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, (3.) Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and not the upholder, regardless of any subsequent additional modifying work which might or might not had been made by the uploader. The status of British Crown copyright in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and thereby also in the United States of America in relation to British passports is anyway settled by this published and released British Government official guidance, which is available for access here [2]. By the way, as to its year of provenance, as a side point and also as a point of interest, the "UK" logo would indicate that it is highly likely to have been produced in the 1960s or beyond. -- Urquhartnite (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-ineligible. Yann (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Obvious rephotograph from book, source reads "Source Book Bank Leumi century" which is equal to no source. No date, and no author. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 17:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
No license. Child died in 1978, no way can the photographer have been dead 70 years. This is another case of a User:Amitie 10g removing valid tagging of other editors without fixing the problem which led to the tag being applied in the first place. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies but I am not an expert in copyright. The photo was released to the public by the family decades ago. It is the photo that was used in all press stories. It was used on all police notices to the public. I know the family: they have no issue with it's use. Quite the contrary: it's a Cold Case: the more information about it the better (including photos). Tell what to do and I will take care of it. J Allore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jallore (talk • contribs)
Comment No worries, copyright is complicated! "Released to use" is not the same thing as a Commons license. Please have whoever took the photo send permission to COM:OTRS. Thanks! Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 17:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}} would not apply here, because it is too complex. The company that owns the rights of the logo is The Walt Disney Company.
The request also includes:
- File:Disney Channel Logo.jpg (Same logo)
Mega-buses (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Logo is copyrighted. 1989 01:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment Comparing to COM:TOO#United States I don't think it is that clear. --Leyo 01:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep {{PD-textlogo}} applies. Having some color or some minor aesthetic gradation effects on the logo does not change the copyrightablity of a text logo. "Copyrightability depends upon the presence of creative expression in a work, and not upon aesthetic merit, commercial appeal, or symbolic value. ... mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work." -- from s:Page:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf/131. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 22:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- @朝彦: File:Disney Channel Logo.jpg was deleted per copyright violation. And was the same logo. A similar logo without the "HD" appears here (official website of DC Germany). en:File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png (only used on the english wikipedia) is a derivative of the DC Germany logo. You say (I think): the logo of Disney Channel US can be also used in Commons, if I'm not mistaken. --Mega-buses (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that en:File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png can be on Commons also. I can't see File:Disney Channel Logo.jpg now, but like this one, most likely it wasn't so obvious of a violation. Needless to say, I'm open to more detailed information by experts. --朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- @朝彦: File:Disney Channel Logo.jpg was deleted per copyright violation. And was the same logo. A similar logo without the "HD" appears here (official website of DC Germany). en:File:Disney Channel 2014 logo.png (only used on the english wikipedia) is a derivative of the DC Germany logo. You say (I think): the logo of Disney Channel US can be also used in Commons, if I'm not mistaken. --Mega-buses (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per User:朝彦 /St1995 13:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: I would say PD-text Natuur12 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, this not consists of simple geometric shapes . HombreDHojalata.talk 09:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment It seems unnecessary to reopen a deletion request. It was decided to keep the file six months ago. --Mega-buses (talk) 21:56, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: text-only. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney-channel-new2015.png, is too complex for PD-textlogo. ViperSnake151 (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Did you considered the two previous DR resolved as kept (the last one closed one week ago)? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Notice that Commons:Deletion requests/File:Disney-channel-new2015.png belongs to the logo with the swirl, that is abobe the TOO, unlike this file, that is text-only and is bellow the TOO in the US (broad concensus determined that several times). --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Text-only (albeit simulated hand-written text) and in no way above TOO. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete If one of the files can not be, the other also not. The only difference between one and the other were the circles that were above the "I" (That one anyone can add inclusive with the Windows Paint or a Design Program). Comment The two logos were first used in Germany (in January 2014); then the logos were incorporated into the other Disney Channel networks in the world. --Mega-buses (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per P199. --Leyo 20:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Textlogo until a court decides otherwise. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 02:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE. Personal unused. -- Steinsplitter (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: Planned to be used in a user page, according to the uploader’s expressed intentions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused image with no source or author. Better images available, see Category:Lockheed_U-2 Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: questionable copyright status. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Villaggio Mall
[edit]
Moved from Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/08/Category:Villaggio Mall: Achim (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)- File:Entrance of Villagio Mall, Doha.jpg
- File:Villaggio mall doha.jpg
- File:Villaggio.JPG
- File:VillaggioMall34.jpg
There is no COM:FOP in Qatar. This category should be deleted and so should all these images here. Leoboudv (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: No FOP in Qatar. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Obvious rephotograph from book, source reads "Source Book Bank Leumi century" which is equal to no source. No date, and no author. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:Hedwig in Washington. JuTa 20:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Image was tagged for lack of license, which was removed without fixing the license problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Image is dated 1939 with a 1976 source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: licenses are required PumpkinSky talk 11:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Small size, no EXIF data, pictures of photographs, unlikely to be free.
Yann (talk) 08:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work
- File:Thu Phuong Westminster.jpg
- File:Nhuchuabatdau.jpg
- File:Musicspace2011.jpg
- File:Thu Phương at Toronto, Canada 2011.jpg
- File:Tplogo.jpg
- File:Ubmh.jpg
- File:Tphuy.jpg
- File:Thu Phương 15.jpg
- File:Phương& VAnh.jpg
- File:Phuongtophit.jpg
- File:Thu Phương Newyork.jpg
- File:Phuong03.jpg
- File:Mbuon.jpg
- File:Hdve.jpg
- File:Thu Phương Handwritting.jpg
- File:Kim Oanh with Hai Phong leaders 1995.jpg
- File:Kim Oanh Restaurant.jpg
- File:Kim Oanh with Hai Phong leaders 1993.jpg
- File:Kim Oanh Miss Sport VN 2013.jpg
- File:Kim Oanh Signature.png
- File:Kim Oanh Miss Sport VN 1993.jpg
Didym (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted per nom and previous DR --Herby talk thyme 15:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. Files with small resolution without metadata. Missing permission.
- File:Thu Phương - famous pop diva, a music talented superstar of Haiphong.jpg
- File:Thu Phuong portrait on stage in Hanoi, Febuary 2017 3.jpg
Hystrix (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
This image claims to come from City of San Diego, and to be authored by a city councilman without a scrap of evidence to back it up. This uploader has previously uploaded images and claimed own work; now is trying to apply a PD-CAgov to a local document. This image would need a COM:OTRS from Mr. Roberts to be retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- PD-CAGov applies to local governments as well. This looks very similar to File:Valenzuela-Nieders cross-border airport concept.jpg which has OTRS... they both look like manipulations of the same base photo. Given the resolution of the image, I would imagine the uploader is in fact the person it seems to be, and one involved in the effort to get the facility built. They would certainly seem to have access to images not available elsewhere. If not PD-CAGov, then the uploader may well own it as a work for hire. If they claim own work and license it... what are the grounds to not presume good faith? Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The grounds to not assume Good Faith are the multiple uploads and reuploads of images which the uploader did not create. Also the work of elected officials (on their private time) is not the property of the public. There is no indication of where this image came from. The first time it was deleted, the uploader claimed he took the photo himself from a Cessna! The "who owns what" keeps shifting on these images; the goal is to get the promotional images onto Commons without any other concerns. This issue has been going on at least since March of this year. Uploader has shopped admins, written books of explanation and not once shown that he's capable of drawing a straight line, let alone 3D renderings, architectural drawings and plans. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah... it's all a bit odd. But things could be work for hire; the copyright ownership might be different than the authorship. If they believe they have rights to the material, and we can't show it was simply copied from elsewhere, that is usually when assume good faith kicks in. I do remember DRs involving this stuff in the past. But this one is not copied from any source that I could find. Many groups like that don't care much about the copyright niceties when they are doing the work -- they just want the material to work with -- but if they hired the people who got the work, who knows. Agreed that the license on this sounds odd (though the city was involved it sounds like), and a CC license of a work for hire is more likely, but it could be the aerial shot was taken by the city, or something like that. We do seem to have OTRS on the photo involved given the other one, for what it's worth. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Then let's keep the other one with OTRS, and see that this claim is spurious. You can't have two owners of copyright for the same image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure you can. The base image was one copyright, and the layers on top of it were another. If this image was PD-CAGov, and the image in the other link (which is a separate proposal) was a private modification thereof (or just the original base image which was PD-CAGov), then the layer on top could have an additional copyright, which is being licensed there. If Mr. Nieders hired someone to do that drawing work, then it could very well be a work for hire where Mr. Nieders owns the copyright. That would explain the CC license on the other image, but the PD-CAGov license here (assuming the city also did the extra layer in this case). Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- Then let's keep the other one with OTRS, and see that this claim is spurious. You can't have two owners of copyright for the same image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm; I don't think "Uploader has shopped admins" is a suitable phrase here. In my OTRS time, I had verified a lot of accounts. Here we failed to verify Ralph Nieders in the first place as he has no website, blog, or any other external sites. He acknowledged that he has not knowledge or expertise on modern Internet tools. So I collected a signed document and presented in first undeletion request. It was not well accepted. I informed this to him and forwarded his request for some admin in his area to contact him to verify his identity. I've no further info till HJ Mitchell filed the second undeletion request.
- One plus point now is that his account is well verified now. And Yann's observation there seems very sensible: "If there is some doubt about who are the copyright holders (they could be more than one), we can at least accept that Ralph Nieders is one of them. And this is enough to be able to release them under a free license. "
- Please note his age as Elcobbola pointed out earlier. It is difficult to educate a person too much about copyright laws. But we (me and Natuur12) tried our best. I even asked him to post at VPC for further help. He replied he was tired posting several places and it is difficult for him to understand the wiki page concepts.
- All I/we do so far is to help a person have some requests. There is no shopping or personal favor in it. Jee 02:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- The main point here is that multiple admins have been contacted by the uploader who is shopping around to find someone who agrees with him. Multiple uploading of images with various claims of who created what only confirms to me the personal nature of the uploads. If he were not personally involved in the project - and constantly bragging about it - I would never have considered "self-promotion" for these images; however the long rambling letters only serve to obfuscate the point which is he didn't create this image (and probably didn't create the fancy 3-D renderings either as that requires more computer experience than he later claims to have). This image has been sourced variously at different times, and one image cannot have two creators. I'd say keep the other image (with the OTRS) and remove this one. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- The last two contacts are based on my suggestion (see my talk); so they are more of my mistake than his. My intention was good as one is the admin who restored other files and other has OTRS access and commented on the previous UNDEL. I think the user contacted me only because I handled the ticket earlier. I should be more careful; advising him only to post at COM:VPC may better for neutrality. BTW; this is just an explanation of what I did, no way interested in whether the files being kept/deleted. Jee 02:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I am not sure about the copyright of this file, but Jee is mostly right. Rnieders may also be confused about copyright issues, but I think he is of good faith. My 0.02 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I don't think age has anything to do with it. We have had this issue come up with other people, and the age issue usually has nothing to do with their ability to read and work within COM:L. I have seen with this uploader several of these where the image is credited both to (a) and to (b); uploads to Wikipedia with claims of who made it - removed for copyright, same uploads put here with different claims of who made it and retained. I offer only that this is a multilayered onion and COM:PRP needs to kick in. This particular image is now claimed to be created by two people, one of whom apparently submitted an OTRS, so this image should be deleted - good faith totally accepted along with a significant dose of self-promotion. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I have read the comments above and can understand why there is confusion. Many of the issues have been previously discussed. But the images I uploaded incorrectly under fair use and which were selected for deletion by Stefan2 from Sweden were clearly identified as to source, i.e. ASA, SANDAG, San Diego and myself. The images which were subsequently re-uploaded did not include the three former and I have made those initial images available for review, but regardless, those initial uploaded images created the current confusion. With regard to the base picture, the Aerocharter image is not the same as for the Valenzuela image and I have that base picture. In 1990, my cross-border terminal proposal was rejected by SANDAG who then sought to get Mexico to agree to a bi-national airport. I was physically in the meetings in Mexico City when the SCT rejected the SANDAG proposal in December 1990. Ron Roberts knew I had met with SANDAG and that they had rejected my proposal. Roberts called me to his office and showed me a rendering of what came to be called TwinPorts and asked if Mexico would support such a design. I sent a copy of that rendering to Rodolfo Ramos Ortiz who had been selected by President Salinas to develop the Toluca airport. Before thousands or millions are spent, renderings are created to introduce and test a concept, this is how it all started. Later to counter objections by ASA, I created a modified TwinPorts design and hired a local artist to create what I called the Valenzuela phased proposal. In 1965, Valenzuela proposed a joint airport with San Diego which San Diego rejected. Valenzuela built the Tijuana airport as well as 20 other airports as the Minister of Public Works (1964-1970). We all wanted to create something innovative in an antagonistic environment. None of us were paid. If that is self-promotion, I am sorry, but I took the time and effort to do things no one else was willing or able to do and for that I am now vilified. The TwinPorts image became the official image in the first San Diego-Mexico meetings. TwinPorts received FAA funding. TwinPorts died in October 1993 and I continued with the cross-border terminal at my own expense for the next 14 years. To rehash everything will be counter-productive but in July of this year (2015), the California Department of Transportation submitted a letter to the legal department of the Wikimedia Foundation which was made available to Jeevan Jose or Natuur12. Caltrans used my material in their Journal in 2001, the Wall Street Journal also featured the project in 2001. I have no interest in antagonizing Ellin Beltz or any other Commons Administrator. I have no problem admitting to mistakes, but some of the statements and implications are not in the spirit or function of this deletion request. I will call Ron Roberts office tomorrow, he may not be in his office due to the summer recess. Ellin Beltz is right, one way or the other, Ron Roberts is the only person who can answer this question. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- The main point here is that multiple admins have been contacted by the uploader who is shopping around to find someone who agrees with him. Multiple uploading of images with various claims of who created what only confirms to me the personal nature of the uploads. If he were not personally involved in the project - and constantly bragging about it - I would never have considered "self-promotion" for these images; however the long rambling letters only serve to obfuscate the point which is he didn't create this image (and probably didn't create the fancy 3-D renderings either as that requires more computer experience than he later claims to have). This image has been sourced variously at different times, and one image cannot have two creators. I'd say keep the other image (with the OTRS) and remove this one. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah... it's all a bit odd. But things could be work for hire; the copyright ownership might be different than the authorship. If they believe they have rights to the material, and we can't show it was simply copied from elsewhere, that is usually when assume good faith kicks in. I do remember DRs involving this stuff in the past. But this one is not copied from any source that I could find. Many groups like that don't care much about the copyright niceties when they are doing the work -- they just want the material to work with -- but if they hired the people who got the work, who knows. Agreed that the license on this sounds odd (though the city was involved it sounds like), and a CC license of a work for hire is more likely, but it could be the aerial shot was taken by the city, or something like that. We do seem to have OTRS on the photo involved given the other one, for what it's worth. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The grounds to not assume Good Faith are the multiple uploads and reuploads of images which the uploader did not create. Also the work of elected officials (on their private time) is not the property of the public. There is no indication of where this image came from. The first time it was deleted, the uploader claimed he took the photo himself from a Cessna! The "who owns what" keeps shifting on these images; the goal is to get the promotional images onto Commons without any other concerns. This issue has been going on at least since March of this year. Uploader has shopped admins, written books of explanation and not once shown that he's capable of drawing a straight line, let alone 3D renderings, architectural drawings and plans. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment An official letter has been sent by Ron Roberts regarding the image in question stating it is public domain. I have asked Jeevan Jose to make that letter available to Natuur12 and Carl Lindberg. Contact information is included on the email and letter. Respectfully Rnieders (talk) 02:10, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can forward that mail to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org mentioning the early ticket number (#2015010210007101) in subject line. You can ask Ron Roberts to sent the mail directly to COM:OTRS for more transparency, if needed. Jee 02:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can forward that mail to permissions-commons
Thank you, the email with the PDF letter signed by Supervisor Ron Roberts stating the image is Public Domain has been submitted to permissions-commons ticket number #2015010210007101 and confirmation of receipt has been received. Rnieders (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Today, August 20, the office of Ron Roberts sent an email directly to Permissions-commons with a copy of the attached rendering and signed letter from Ron Roberts confirming the image is Public Domain, would appreciate that this discussion be closed and the deletion request removed from the image- Respectfully,Rnieders (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to say Keep at this point. I think many previous deletion requests had to do with verifying Mr. Nieders' identity; from the above it sounds like that has been verified without much doubt. As for the copyright, there is a copyright for the base aerial image, and there is also a copyright for the drawings layered above it. The aerial image appears to be the same one from File:Valenzuela-Nieders cross-border airport concept.jpg... if not the same base image, then it is from another image taken at the same time from virtually the same location. They are a different crop of the image certainly, and one has been processed more, perhaps rotated a bit, and lost some detail, but the details on the ground are the same and the perspectives of the ground items look identical -- it's hard to replicate a photo that exactly unless they were images in a series. Anyways, if that photo was PD-CAGov, and Mr. Nieders hired someone to do the additional drawing in File:Valenzuela-Nieders cross-border airport concept.jpg, then that would explain the license there (as Mr. Nieders would own that copyright as a private work for hire). If the city of San Diego caused this proposal to be made (i.e. the additional drawing is also PD-CAGov in this case), then the PD-CAGov license here also makes sense. If Mr. Nieders hired the person who made the aerial photo (thus owning copyright as a work for hire), and the city just used it during their proposal, then technically this should have a CC license as well as some of the work would not be PD-CAGov. Really though, it seems as though just about all the work involved is from either the San Diego city government in the course of their employment (PD-CAGov), or work of Mr. Nieders (or work for hire owned by Mr. Nieders), who seems more than willing to license these works freely. Either way it's a keep for me; at this point it's beyond a reasonable doubt I think -- maybe quibbling over the correct license. Identifying who exactly did each part on a project of this nature can get very confused -- it's not something anyone keeps track of when actually doing the project, because they are only interested in the end result. If copyrights are technically owned by someone else, then licenses or fair use would make them all OK to use when it comes to the project itself. It's only when it comes to the question of a "free" copyright license now decades later, and thus potential uses outside the scope of that project, where the copyright becomes a theoretical problem. But I think there is good enough reason to believe that the copyrights are OK. If someone brings up some further evidence which casts doubt on a license, it can be re-opened then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
- The email from Ron Roberts sent to permissions-commons on August 20th with ticket #2015010210007101 in the the subject bar, received a confirmation email from permissions-commons stating "If you want to send more emails about the same subject, please add the following to the subject bar of the email: [Ticket#: 2015082010023931]." The letter should be under one of those two ticket numbers. Rnieders (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket 2015081810019539 Jcb (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Obsolete version of File:Clonazepam22.jpg (because picture with many icons at top: no interest). Cjp24 (talk) 11:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Estazolam.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Adinazolam.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Deschloroetizolam.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Flubromazolam.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Alprazolam structure.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have File:Alprazolam structure.svg in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 14:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; low resolution version of File:Flunitrazolam triazolo.jpg. Cjp24 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; low resolution version of File:Flunitrazolam triazolo.jpg. Cjp24 (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG versions in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG version in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Unused JPG; have SVG version in use at the articles for this substance. Cjp24 (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nom. Leyo 13:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
"Transferred from Wikipedia" is not a valid source. The Http:// source given goes to an invalid webpage. As this was just transferred from Wikipedia by User:Amitie 10g, it requires a source. COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy keept: "Transferred from Wikipedia" is not a valid source? Obviously, Wikipedia is a valid source because the file has been transfered manually from there (because transfer with CommonsHelper failed, I should be placed the information found manually). Anyway, {{PD-Textlogo}} clearly applies to the logo, and considering previous DR of raster version of this logo closed as Withdraw. And finally, if the original source is not longer available, is a reason for deletion (assuming that the original uploader did not used a 404 page as source at the moment of upload)?
WTF? The only relevant think is that this logo is clearly bellow the Threshold of Originality in the US. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- CommentFrom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons : Do not transfer files without a clear and verifiable source. ... If the source is a website, check to see if the link is still active. If it isn't, it might be simple to reestablish a link, but if no link can be found, it might not be a good idea to transfer the file over. And then on COM:MTC Check if the image has a proper license/author/source/permission.. This file has no original date, no valid source (the link 404s), no author and should not have been transferred without all of the above. It is up to the uploader or file transfer user to provide this information, please see COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment — Whether or not this logo is ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality may be irrelevant. I checked the source site with archive.org and it says "Copyright (c) 2009 Brian Lafond". The reason this matters is since the original file was authored in a source code format (i.e. SVG) we have to also worry about the copyright to the SVG source code (this SVG is not the product of a conversion by a Commons volunteer, but the original format). For example, a comparable issue in the U.S. is digital fonts. The U.S. considers typefaces to be ineligible for copyright protection, but the U.S. Copyright Office does permit the copyright registration of digital vector fonts in file formats like Postscript or TrueType under the theory that while the product of the font source code may be ineligible for copyright protection, the source itself is a "computer program" that can be eligible for protection. See w:Intellectual_property_protection_of_typefaces#United_States for a bit of background. —RP88 (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- RP88 This is the first time I have ever seen "copyright of SVG code" used as a rationale to delete a public domain image. This seems like the kind of image routinely identified as public domain on Commons. There are a lot of SVGs in Commons. When or where has it ever been argued that the code of the SVG, and not the image output, needs to be checked for copyright? Is SVG the only file type which is argued to have copyrightable code, or are the limitless ways to code any image file all in need of consideration? This sounds wrong to me - what I am missing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, this has come up before several times. I did a quick search and found one bit of back and forth on both sides of the issue at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/03#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F, but I definitely recall seeing it elsewhere. Most of the time this is not an issue because the vast majority of the SVG logos on Commons are not SVG files taken from a source that claims a non-free license on the SVG file. Most SVG logos on Commons are creations of Commons volunteers styled after a raster image, which is fine even if the raster image is only PD by virtue of being ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality. The issue with creativity and TOO with regard to SVG source code has to be considered in the context of literary works (the U.S. Copyright Office classifies "computer programs" as literally works). I'm editing from a phone right now, so I can't check the source code to this particular SVG myself at the moment. —RP88 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- OK, i've had a chance to look at the SVG source code for this particular image and it doesn't have a lot of creative expression: the source code was generated by Adobe Illustrator, not by hand, and there are no comments, no embedded CSS, and not very many anchor points (by far the largest thing in the file is an unused Polka_Dot_Pattern object). —RP88 (talk) 02:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, this has come up before several times. I did a quick search and found one bit of back and forth on both sides of the issue at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2014/03#SVG.27s_are_computer_software.3F, but I definitely recall seeing it elsewhere. Most of the time this is not an issue because the vast majority of the SVG logos on Commons are not SVG files taken from a source that claims a non-free license on the SVG file. Most SVG logos on Commons are creations of Commons volunteers styled after a raster image, which is fine even if the raster image is only PD by virtue of being ineligible for copyright protection due to it being below the threshold of originality. The issue with creativity and TOO with regard to SVG source code has to be considered in the context of literary works (the U.S. Copyright Office classifies "computer programs" as literally works). I'm editing from a phone right now, so I can't check the source code to this particular SVG myself at the moment. —RP88 (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- RP88 This is the first time I have ever seen "copyright of SVG code" used as a rationale to delete a public domain image. This seems like the kind of image routinely identified as public domain on Commons. There are a lot of SVGs in Commons. When or where has it ever been argued that the code of the SVG, and not the image output, needs to be checked for copyright? Is SVG the only file type which is argued to have copyrightable code, or are the limitless ways to code any image file all in need of consideration? This sounds wrong to me - what I am missing? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry It's theoretical, but there is a ruling on a computer font that there were copyrightable aspects there beyond the (uncopyrightable) shape of the letters, specifically the control points of the vectors. Someone was convicted of copying a computer font's vector information, even though if someone made a font from scratch which visually looked almost identical that would be OK. If someone hand-edits an SVG, that could definitely qualify as a computer software copyright, for example. The copyright would be for elements unrelated to the visual image, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. Another example is making an engraving or even mezzotint of a painting -- there are copyrightable aspects of the details of making the engraving or mezzotint, even when the base painting is PD. There was a more recent case (Meshwerks; William Patry summary here) which was about a 3-D model of a car which was done in a way which was ruled to be slavish copying and therefore no additional creativity; that would seem to indicate that an SVG which was just a slavish copy of an existing logo probably does not get any additional creativity. As for COM:EVID, if the license is PD-ineligible, then the evidence should be inherent in the uploaded content, so it doesn't strictly need a source or date. We should be able to judge based on the content we see. I'd feel a bit more comfortable if the SVG-ization was done by a Commons contributor, though it does look to be a pretty slavish copy of the original logo, so I think I'd still vote Keep here either way. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clindberg RP88 Could you both check what I wrote at Help:SVG#Copyright? I had heard of the Meshworks case - I will think more about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- I expanded the section, let's take any further discussion of your new section at Help:SVG#Copyright to Help talk:SVG. —RP88 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clindberg RP88 Could you both check what I wrote at Help:SVG#Copyright? I had heard of the Meshworks case - I will think more about that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Bluerasberry It's theoretical, but there is a ruling on a computer font that there were copyrightable aspects there beyond the (uncopyrightable) shape of the letters, specifically the control points of the vectors. Someone was convicted of copying a computer font's vector information, even though if someone made a font from scratch which visually looked almost identical that would be OK. If someone hand-edits an SVG, that could definitely qualify as a computer software copyright, for example. The copyright would be for elements unrelated to the visual image, but it doesn't mean it can't exist. Another example is making an engraving or even mezzotint of a painting -- there are copyrightable aspects of the details of making the engraving or mezzotint, even when the base painting is PD. There was a more recent case (Meshwerks; William Patry summary here) which was about a 3-D model of a car which was done in a way which was ruled to be slavish copying and therefore no additional creativity; that would seem to indicate that an SVG which was just a slavish copy of an existing logo probably does not get any additional creativity. As for COM:EVID, if the license is PD-ineligible, then the evidence should be inherent in the uploaded content, so it doesn't strictly need a source or date. We should be able to judge based on the content we see. I'd feel a bit more comfortable if the SVG-ization was done by a Commons contributor, though it does look to be a pretty slavish copy of the original logo, so I think I'd still vote
- Comment Remember even if kept, the file still needs a source. Since it was not created by the person who transferred the file from en:wiki and it's an SVG, a valid source of the file is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, if not copyrightable, then a source is not required. It's just preferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- What about the 17 U.S. Code § 1302? This is why Copyright Paranoia should not be allowed, specially for works explicitly not protected by the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hehehe. That actually is not part of "normal" copyright law... you found a weird corner which is not applicable to artistic works. For those, it's still "original works of authorship" which are protected, with case law mostly defining what those are. You can see the Copyright Compendium for the U.S. Copyright Office guidelines when it comes to what that actually means. As for the section you found... when the Copyright Act 1976 was being debated in the 1970s, it was suggested that industrial design also be protected via copyright law (as some countries do). Accordingly, the proposed sections of the law were written up, but eventually not included in the law (the U.S. continues to use design patents for that type of protection for the most part). As such, the design of utilitarian objects are not subject to U.S. copyright at all -- almost. In 1998, the U.S. Congress decided to protect vessel hulls in particular with some additional protection, and they passed the Vessel Hull Design Protection Act. For the text of the law, they dug up the unused text from the 1970s on generic "useful articles", and then just changed the definition of "useful article" to be "vessel hull" specifically, and dumped the whole thing into the law. You can see that in section 1301(b)(2). So, the section you quote applies to vessel hull designs, and only vessel hull designs, when you read carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- What about the 17 U.S. Code § 1302? This is why Copyright Paranoia should not be allowed, specially for works explicitly not protected by the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, if not copyrightable, then a source is not required. It's just preferred. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: User:Josve05a uploaded a new version of the SVG with different code. If nenough, the previous version may be speedied, conserving the new version. But the Threshold of originality and SVG is still a big source of discussion, with diffents opinions about the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of vectorization code having its own copyright may not be obvious to everyone. In particular, there are sites such as Brands of the World and seeklogo which offer vector images of logos (i.e. EPS) for free download. On Commons, it appears that there are multiple images that may well have originated from one of these two sites. Perhaps it would be useful to add Brands of the World and seeklogo to the COM:Problematic sources page along with information about vectorization copyright? --Gazebo (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- I don't think we should go that far. The Meshwerks ruling tends to indicate that many/most of those SVGs are OK. I don't think we really have enough case law to definitively state one way or the other. Because there is not much case law, it's mostly a theoretical concern. Hand-editing SVGs are probably the most likely issue (copyrighted as a computer program), but beyond that it's not as clear at all. If we've generally been allowing those others, we should probably continue unless some better information (such as a new court case) comes to light. Carl Lindberg (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- The issue of vectorization code having its own copyright may not be obvious to everyone. In particular, there are sites such as Brands of the World and seeklogo which offer vector images of logos (i.e. EPS) for free download. On Commons, it appears that there are multiple images that may well have originated from one of these two sites. Perhaps it would be useful to add Brands of the World and seeklogo to the COM:Problematic sources page along with information about vectorization copyright? --Gazebo (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment When moving content from Wikipedia, it's helpful to use the Commons Helper tool so that the original dates etc. are also copied over. Even if you can't use it to directly move the files, you can use it to generate the file page text including the original Wikipedia upload log, and you can copy that to the manual upload. That information is helpful, and is missing here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Per previous DR of raster version of this logo. Besides, it is simple text, below the TOO. - Fma12 (talk) 21:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo, no reason for deletion. Yann (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
copyvio: "森下千里" (= w:ja:森下千里 = w:en:Chisato Morishita) is a Japanese TV personality and former race queen (RQ). This image seems a scanned one from magazine or something, with low resolution, without EXIF. It is unlikely not to be own work. KurodaSho (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. BrightRaven (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mgmoscatello (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unclear copyright status: Derivated from paintings, sculptures, etc. by unknown artists, per file title somehow related to "Legion of Honor". Uploader's description: mostly "painting", "sculpture", etc. without providing details. Unknown location. Indoor shots. 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 this case..
May be in public domain by other reasons, but relevant infos must be provided.
- File:Legion of Honor 43.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 42.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 41.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 40.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 39.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 38.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 37.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 34.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 36.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 35.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 31.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 33.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 32.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 30.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 29.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 28.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 27.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 26.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 25.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 24.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 23.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 22.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 21.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 20.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 19.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 18.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 17.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 15.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 16.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 14.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 12.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 13.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 11.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 10.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 09.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 05a.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 08.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 05.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 03.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 04.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 06.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 01.jpg
- File:Legion of Honor 02.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: These artworks are located in the Legion of Honor, San Francisco. They all seem to be in the public domain because of their age. If you have doubts about some of them, please nominate them individually. BrightRaven (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Contiene errores en la secuencia de cuadros DiogenWebBlog (talk) 01:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this image. No way to tell if the picture is old enough to be kept with this little information. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Image has no source. The source directs to a blank wiki page. Image was tagged for copyvio, which was removed without fixing the problem by User:Amitie 10g. I disagree with removing the tags placed there by other editors and am creating a deletion nomination for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Como autor de la fotografía, propongo su eliminación ya que dentro de los derechos de autor se incluye la potestad de publicar o no una obra y, como en este caso, de retirarla. Agradecería que se respeten mis derechos. Además nadie usó la fotografía, por lo tanto, nadie se ve perjudicado por esta acción. Gustavo 00:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
El archivo o página no se puede usar potencialmente en ningún proyecto de wikimedia ya que se trata de una obras propia, sin un propósito educativo. Tal como lo establece la política de borrado: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Normas_de_borrado#Borrado_com.C3.BAn Gustavo 21:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given per deletion policy. There is certainly educational value in this image. Uploader request is not valid either because this is more than seven days after upload. Green Giant (talk) 00:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Como autor de la fotografía, propongo su eliminación ya que dentro de los derechos de autor se incluye la potestad de publicar o no una obra y, como en este caso, de retirarla. Agradecería que se respeten mis derechos. Además nadie usó la fotografía, por lo tanto, nadie se ve perjudicado por esta acción. Gustavo 00:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Same as last closing. Natuur12 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
El archivo o página no se puede usar potencialmente en ningún proyecto de wikimedia ya que se trata de una obra propia, sin un propósito educativo.Tal como lo establece la política de borrado: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Normas_de_borrado#Borrado_com.C3.BAn. De hecho, el archivo no está siendo utilizado por ningún otro usuario. Gustavo 22:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given per deletion policy. There is certainly educational value in this image. Uploader request is not valid either because this is more than seven days after upload. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Como autor de la fotografía, propongo su eliminación ya que dentro de los derechos de autor se incluye la potestad de publicar o no una obra y, como en este caso, de retirarla. Agradecería que se respeten mis derechos. Además nadie usó la fotografía, por lo tanto, nadie se ve perjudicado por esta acción. Gustavo 00:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Same as last closing. Natuur12 (talk) 15:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
El archivo o página no se puede usar potencialmente en ningún proyecto de wikimedia ya que se trata de una obra propia, sin un propósito educativo.Tal como lo establece la política de borrado: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Normas_de_borrado#Borrado_com.C3.BAn. De hecho, el archivo no está siendo utilizado por ningún otro usuario. Gustavo 22:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason given per deletion policy. There is certainly educational value in this image. Uploader request is not valid either because this is more than seven days after upload. Green Giant (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Como autor de la fotografía, propongo su eliminación ya que dentro de los derechos de autor se incluye la potestad de publicar o no una obra y, como en este caso, de retirarla. Agradecería que se respeten mis derechos. Además nadie usó la fotografía, por lo tanto, nadie se ve perjudicado por esta acción. Gustavo 00:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Same as last closing. Natuur12 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
not PD until 2038 Didym (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- delete: hello. It is I who has filed this image commons, while I was not familiar with the rule. And it's me who has also requested the removal. --F. Lamiot (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Pd-textlogo Natuur12 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Já foi enviada a autorização para a Wikipédia via email.
Poderia remover o Requerimento de deletar a imagem?
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Já foi enviada a autorização para a Wikipédia via email. Gostaria também de informar que outro ficheiro foi removido mesmo eu já tendo enviado a expressa autorização a Wikipédia são os ficheiros Lajes_Palmácia.jpg,Panorama_Serra_de_Palmácia.jpg" e Vicente_Sampaio_e_Rosimir_Espíndola_Sampaio.jpg,respectivamente.
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Olá,gostaria de saber o motivo da eliminação,sou o autor da imagem e quero que a mesma continue na Wikipédia.
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Já foi enviada a autorização para a Wikipédia via email.
This file was initially tagged by O revolucionário aliado as no permission (No permission since) Didym (talk) 05:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Já foi enviada a autorização para a Wikipédia via email.
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as no source (No source since) Didym (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Below TOO Natuur12 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Xublake (Flickr etc. grabber). All files uploaded 24./25.11.2013 for en:Shenzhen, a city in China. Not nominated is File:Shenzhen Apartment.jpg = false claim of authorship/license/etc., but luckily in CC at original source Flickr. Note that uploader cropped some files before upload.
- File:Shenzhen futian.jpg
- File:Shenzhen library & Music Hall.jpg
- File:ShenZhen at night.jpg
- File:Shenzhen airport T3.jpg
- File:Shenzhen OCT Bay.jpg
File:Lianhuashan Garden.jpg--> false claim of authorship/license/etc., luckily in CC at Flickr- File:Gold Futian.jpg
- File:Shenzhen view.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Nominanting too:
- File:Shenzhen Wikivoyage banner.jpg --> derivated from File:ShenZhen at night.jpg
- File:Shenzhencity.jpg (collage) --> affected by File:ShenZhen at night.jpg + the source/license and author information of several images used in this collage is missing or is insufficient, compromising the whole file. See also Commons:Collages. Again here edited by Lzy881114 (talk · contributions · Statistics) = Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lzy881114 (+ eventually related) Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Andrei1230.
Gunnex (talk) 08:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Flag of a fictitious supranational entity, only used in a single user's sandbox. Out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 08:13, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how to discuss on wikipedia, but there is realy only one reason that this picture exists on wikipedia-so that I could write about it and tinker in my sand box to show off to friends. If there is a way to keep it as a private photo away from public access then by all means I will do it. If there isn't then I don't really know why it should be deleted. It isn't harming anyone and I doubt that anyone has actually come across it.
Kept: This qualifies as a personal image and we allow those when they are in use Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Upload 19:01, 14. Jul. 2014, still sandbox on enwiki. No reason to believe this will ever be used in a valid article. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Though the file is used in a sandbox, I do not see how this could be in scope. Kathisma (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no longer in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The picture is a duplicate of File:Église du Vieux Lugo 3.jpg Henry (Babel talk !) (Francophone ?) 11:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I have uploaded this image three years ago and now I would like to delete it, because there is my name in the right down corner and I do not want to show it in the picture. Thank you for understanding. Kajas23 (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Doubtfll claim of ownsership anyways Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 11:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 11:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. The same applies to 12 other photographs of this building in the same category. Surtsicna (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Former canton maps were moved in a sub-category ; the present category is no longer useful as its new maps were moved to the root category. Flappiefh (talk) 12:14, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation. There is no freedom of panorama in Bosnia and Herzegovina. See Article 52 of the 2010 law on copyright and related rights. The building was recently constructed and the copyright holder does not appear to have given his or her permission. Commercial use of the work must be allowed; in this case, it is explicitly prohibited. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 12:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a photograph of a 2-D image and text, copyrighted to the Ironbridge Gorge Trust, and not covered by the Right of Panorama in the UK Hchc2009 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no information about the author and source of the image. Mhhossein (talk) 14:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- That was because of user:Mhakimi2010 [3] (I haven't checked COM:LL issues). Materialscientist (talk) 21:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Valid LR template Natuur12 (talk) 15:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
poor quality GAndy (talk) 14:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, no need to remove. GAndy (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Mappa errata, sostituita da File:Italia - mappa strada statale 45 bis.svg. Sono l'autore di entrambe Arbalete (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Mappa errata e obsoleta, sostituita da File:Italia - mappa strada statale 45 bis.svg Arbalete (talk) 02:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use - not duplicates. --Jcb (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
This map contains some mistakes. It has been substituted by File:Italia - mappa strada statale 45 bis.svg. I'm the author of both files. Arbalete (talk) 22:06, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Kept: still in use, still not duplicate. --Jcb (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Неясный лицензионный статус: ник автора совпадает с именем персонажа, умершего 20 лет назад. -- Tomasina (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
and File:Stealth Building-005.jpg.
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagrams. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Probable copyvio—this translation of the national anthem of Kazakhstan appears elsewhere on the Web, and the uploader doesn't appear to be the source. Absent any statement from the original translator releasing their translation under a free content licence or into the public domain, we should assume that it is non-free. Psychonaut (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This image should be deleted because:
- As it is identical to a previous revision of File:Coat of arms of Belarus.svg, the current version of which has only minor cosmetic changes, it is redundant.
- As the original illustrators' credits have been stripped and replaced by those of the uploader, it is a copyright violation.
- The title falsely implies that the coat of arms was used only between 1995 and 2012, when in fact this is the current coat of arms.
Psychonaut (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom, it is redundant and misleading. Tom-L (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
According description this was created 2005, which is not pre 1983 which the license requires. JuTa 15:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Restored per {{PD-BrazilGov}} and Lei municipal 525/1967. Alan (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
[Renomination, see below, @JuTa: , more infos: above] Flag (bandeira) of Brazilian municipality pt:Jaguariaíva, created by municipal law nº 1636/2005 only in 2005, failing {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "(...) published or commissioned (...) prior to 1983." No trivial text/shape logo, failing {{PD-textlogo}}/{{PD-shape}}. All flags (and also coats of arms) of Brazilian municipalities are established by municipal law. Generally for most of the Brazilian coats of arms and flags: unlikely also that these symbols were digitized in there present form prior to 1983 (when "Internet" was available only for a few institutions, TCP/IP was standardized in 1982). Their creation date could be quite recent, maybe not even by an employee of the Brazilian government (mostly some years after official federal constitution, see also this extreme case, where a Brazilian municipality created his official symbols in 2014: 81 years after emancipation...).
Obs.: Restored via Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-10#File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg (part 2) by @Alan: (and Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2015-10#File:Bandeira do Município de Jaguariaíva.jpg). "Part 2" was argued with basic & vague infos from Commons:Marcas de direitos autorais (inserted in 2007 via this edit) without mentioning the 2005 creation date (and ignoring the pre-1983 restriction of {{PD-BrazilGov}}) and the first undeletion request ended unattended considering @Revent: "(...) Google indicates that this is indeed not a unique depiction of the flag by the uploader, but instead an image taken directly from an official government website... (...)" Gunnex (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 17:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Description states: "A flag of a alternate history India". Uploader's doodle, out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Uploaded with the comment: "This is an artwork of myself." Fictitious flag, out of COM:SCOPE as not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Keφr (keep talk here) 15:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Replaced by multilingual SVG. See File:GDP PPP Poland.svg --Nikolai Twin (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete this one Natuur12 (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
copyright violations, uploaded before as User:Zij4 C3r4 (talk) 15:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it might not be a copyright violation. See Template:PD-Bosnia and Herzegovina. The photograph was published in Bosnia and Herzegovian prior to 1 January 1977 (in 1973 to be specific) and as such appears to be in public domain. Compare with File:Vahida Maglajlic.jpg and File:Marija Bursać.jpg. Surtsicna (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No clear source or proof that the subject is Tvrtko II. For what it's worth, I also seriously question the notability/relevance of this image; it appears to be of no historical or artistic value. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY 09:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
No clear source or proof that the subject is Tvrtko II, copyvio, uploaded as previously User:Zij4 C3r4 (talk) 15:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I am not sure that the image is a copyright violation, unlike many uploaded by this user. It appears to be in public domain per Template:PD-Bosnia and Herzegovina (as it was published in Bosnia and Herzegovina prior to 1 January 1973). It should also be noted that the file previously uploaded under this name is a different image; this one is actually valuable. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- More problems. See File:Tvrtko II.jpg. It seems to be the same image, but Googling the caption beneath it leads us to a 1995 book. Surtsicna (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: per above. Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Clearly wrong licence, copyvio, since in the source stated: author's life +70, (1973?) C3r4 (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wrong license indeed, but the photograph appears to be in public domain per Template:PD-Bosnia and Herzegovina (as it was published in Bosnia and Herzegovina prior to 1 January 1973) and thus not a copyright violation. Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Per above Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW of artwork. Josve05a (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Wrong caption and file name AliIsingor (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
It's an old professional image used in newspapers since 2007, yet uploaded with incorrect information Ajza1 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- For example, it has been stolen from NYmag, from 2007.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2007/11/leonard_blavatnik.html Ajza1 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
An image that appears to have been lifted from CNBC footage, as a reverse image search shows. Ajza1 (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No encyclopedic use, see: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Logbuch/Matthias_Bonitz Brackenheim (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Delete no contributions by this user. --Leyo 23:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
not own work but copyvio, uploader explained that the photo was copied from another website, see: hereGouwenaar (talk) 18:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:Images from IPPAR
[edit]The license template {{IPPAR}} can not be used for files uploaded after May 23, 2009 per the results of Commons:Deletion requests/Template:IPPAR. While the majority of the files in Category:Images from IPPAR are from before that date, some are not. The files listed below were all uploaded after May 23, 2009.
- File:CasteloPortalegre-IPPAR1.jpg
- File:CasteloPortalegre-IPPAR2.jpg
- File:CasteloPortalegre-IPPAR3.jpg
- File:Coimbra-IgrejaGraca-IPPAR1.jpeg
- File:Coimbra-SantiagoChurch-IPPAR1.jpeg
- File:Coimbra-SantiagoChurch-IPPAR2.jpeg
- File:Estação da Mala-Posta do Casal dos Carreiros.jpg
- File:IPPAR-JoaoDasRegras1.jpg
- File:IPPAR-PortalegreBernardo-Tumulo.jpg
- File:IPPAR-SDomingosBenfica1.jpg
- File:PortalegreBarahona-IPPAR.jpg
- File:QuintaLagrimas-IPPAR1.jpeg
- File:QuintaLagrimas-IPPAR2.jpeg
- File:QuintaLagrimas-IPPAR3.jpeg
- File:Tarouca-PedroAfonsoTomb-IPPAR.jpg
—RP88 (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This sculpture was erected in 1938 according to this source but there is no information about when the architect died. Greece has no COM:FOP for 3D sculptures and it is only free if the sculptor died 71 years ago. Leoboudv (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The source says "Γλύπτης του έφιππου αυτού ανδριάντα είναι ο Francesco Parisi που γεννήθηκε στη Νάπολη στις 4 Μάρτη του 1874. Ήταν μαθητής του AchilleD'Orsi. Στη μεγάλη καριέρα του φιλοτέχνησε γυναικείες κεφαλές, προτομές και πορτρέτα. Πέθανε στη Ρώμη το 1956. Αξιοσημείωτο όμως είναι ότι η αρχιτεκτονική σύνθεση του μνημείου οφείλεται και στον ιταλό αρχιτέκτονα C. Vetriani." Parisi the sculptor died in 1956 which means this work is copyrighted until 2027.
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No freedom of panorama in Greece 77.49.119.61 18:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Keep. The park in which the statue stands was built in Athens in 1934, and that King died in 1923. That statue is probably from the thirties too.--The daydreamer (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_de_Graeff.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
%22_--we_hope_that_you_choke;_we_hope_that_you_choke%27_Screenshot_-_050615_-_09-38-39.png&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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&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}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AYanniPressPhoto.jpg&type=revision&diff=148179149&oldid=67003991){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
_de_Graeff.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_de_Graeff.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_de_Graeff.jpg){kind=link}
_de_Graeff.jpg){kind=link}
Kept, per The daydreamer. Kameraad Pjotr 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This sculpture was erected in 1938 according to this source but there is no information about when the architect died. Greece has no COM:FOP for 3D sculptures and it is only free if the sculptor died 71 years ago. Leoboudv (talk) 18:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: The source says "Γλύπτης του έφιππου αυτού ανδριάντα είναι ο Francesco Parisi που γεννήθηκε στη Νάπολη στις 4 Μάρτη του 1874. Ήταν μαθητής του AchilleD'Orsi. Στη μεγάλη καριέρα του φιλοτέχνησε γυναικείες κεφαλές, προτομές και πορτρέτα. Πέθανε στη Ρώμη το 1956. Αξιοσημείωτο όμως είναι ότι η αρχιτεκτονική σύνθεση του μνημείου οφείλεται και στον ιταλό αρχιτέκτονα C. Vetriani." Parisi the sculptor died in 1956 which means this work is copyrighted until 2027. --Leoboudv (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work, other uploads were copyvios. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
OK or not: Commons:Freedom of panorama#Hong Kong? Yann (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: A (likely temp) poster so I say no. Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably not OK: Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan. Yann (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Probably not OK: Commons:Freedom of panorama#Philippines. Yann (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Geagea as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4069788,00.html article from the 20.5.2011 There is a ticket. Let's have a proper DR. Yann (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: as I said on talk: I uploaded this, using the {{PalestineRemembered}} template. However, someone might (?) have broken a copy-right law over at the PalestineRemembered-site, as it look as if the picture came from: http://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-4069788,00.html
- I do not speak/read Hebrew; according to Geagea the article says that the photos are from 1940s or earlier so it may qualify as {{PD-Israel}}. Also; according to Geagea: the picture shows Hartuv", and not Artuf. If so, the description needs to be changed, Huldra (talk) 08:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Israel seems to be fine Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Ellin Beltz as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Uploader did not create newspaper. May be OK, eventually with some cropping. Yann (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- CommentThe file is also not in use, and the stories on that page would also be copyright, not just the photos. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
copyvio, copied from url http://www.garevac.net/tekst/120/ C3r4 (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Source and author information are absent, making verification of copyright status impossible. Contrary to the uploader's statement, this is not "a publicity photo taken to promote a film actor". This is a candid photograph not issued by a studio. The link provided below the template provides no information regarding the author or source. WFinch (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- This image is a cropped version of a better-reproduced photograph appearing in Charles Higham's 1985 book, Orson Welles: The Rise and Fall of an American Genius (ISBN 0-312-58929-8). It appears on the sixth page of photos following page 240, captioned as follows:
Orson with his girl friend the Mexican star Dolores Del Rio at a nightclub in the early 1940s. Visible in the background is Herbert Marshall; Charlie Chaplin is to the right. (Phototeque)
That unfortunately doesn't clarify copyright status, author or date (1941 and 1940?), but I thought it should be noted since it might lead somewhere. — WFinch (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
False source, authorship and licensing information. These signatures are obviously not the uploader's own work. Some may be old enough to be in the public domain, but that requires truthful source and authorship information to determine. Some may qualify for {{PD-signature}}, which also requires truthful information about the provenance and an analysis of the legal situation in the source country – all of which is the uploader's responsibility.
- File:Lombardini.jpg
- File:JUAN.jpg
- File:Mari.jpg
- File:Shhh.jpg
- File:Pedro Maria Anaya.jpg
- File:Firma JMS.jpg
- File:LuisMiguel.jpg
- File:Maradona Diego.jpg
- File:Frederik de Klerk.jpg
- File:By Lucia Mendez.jpg
- File:Octavio.jpg
- File:PitbullPepsi.jpg
- File:EspinozaPaz.jpg
- File:MiguelAngelMancera.jpg
- File:Tatiana22.jpg
- File:PorfirioDiaz.jpg
- File:CarlosSlim.jpg
- File:ExBuki.jpg
- File:FridaKahlo.jpg
- File:EugenioDerbez.jpg
- File:Lolita.jpg
- File:Gjfgjshrwjbxbhusqjb.jpg
- File:Gjkgnoj.jpg
- File:JSFRI.jpg
- File:Firmas Marco.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: For the possible pd-signature files, critical information is still missing Natuur12 (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Again, false source, authorship and licensing information. These signatures are obviously not the uploader's own work. Some may be old enough to be in the public domain, but that requires truthful source and authorship information to determine. Some may qualify for {{PD-signature}}, which also requires truthful information about the provenance and an analysis of the legal situation in the source country – all of which is the uploader's responsibility.
- File:Firma de Aristoteles Sandoval.jpg
- File:Gloria Trevi.jpg
- File:Firma de Pedro Lascuráin Paredes.jpg
- File:Firma de Francisco León de la Barra.jpg
- File:Firma de Manuel González.jpg
- File:Firma de Juan N. Méndez.jpg
- File:Firma de José María Iglesias.jpg
- File:Firma de Sebastián Lerdo de Tejada.jpg
- File:Firma de Juan Nepomuceno Almonte.jpg
- File:Firma de José Ignacio Pavón.jpg
- File:Firma de Manuel Robles Pezuela.jpg
- File:Firma de Ignacio Comonfort.jpg
- File:Firma de Juan Alvarez.jpg
- File:Firma de Rómulo Díaz de la Vega.jpg
- File:Firma de Martin Carrera.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 16:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
________________Deleted per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Files in Category:EdictGov-India
[edit]Neither of these two files are edicts of the Government of India. To qualify for the exclusion from copyright infringement under section 52 (1) (q) of the Indian Copyright Act requires the work to be published in the Official Gazette, an Act of a Legislature published together with any commentary thereon, a report laid on the Table of the Legislature, or a judgement or order of a court, Tribunal or other judicial authority.
—RP88 (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Natuur12 (talk) 16:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)