Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2015/10/03
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG){kind=link}
_02.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Sandefjord.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Becose it is nt necesary for mi 193.231.72.8 00:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedy keep: "I don't like it" is not a valid reason. Plus, in use in other projects. --Pokéfan95 (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2015 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
copyright violation Kevin Foo (Foo Zhen Ning) (talk) 07:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
-2015-10-04T07:50:00.000Z-File:2003-2005_Hyundai_Grandeur_XG250.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:2003 Hyundai Grandeur XG250 Royal Saloon (BRABUS Limited).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Bad quality—stitching defects (see annotations and Talk page). Ant 222 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Not a valid reason, bordering vandalism. Yann (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The information in the image is totally incorrect…
It shows a large green dot in the Eastern US area, apparently (according to the image's legend) meant to indicate that a equivalent of 100% of the entire population of Israel (or some 5.3million) Hebrew speakers exist in that region.
A review of 2011 US Census figures (Language Use in the United States: 2011 Pg.3-Bottom of page) reports total number of Hebrew speakers in the U.S. as 216,343 (for the entire country). Even if Yiddish speakers (160,968) were included (which is not what the image purports to represent where used), it would only represent 7% of the population of Israel (spread through the entire U.S.). All other information reported on the image is therefore equally suspect; furthermore, an image that represents global distribution of Hebrew speakers as a percentage of the population of Israel is essentially meaningless; a proper image, were one to be created, would be the global distribution of Hebrew speech as a percentage of the total number of global Hebrew speakers (rather than as a percentage of Israel's population).
The reported creator of the image (en.WP:User:Anwar) is an indefinitely blocked sock-puppet account.
This image (both on WikiCommons and on en.Wikipedia) seems to be obvious intentionally wrong information. Wikierroneous (talk) 15:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
- Keep The file is in use. So it is better just to upload a correct version. --MGA73 (talk) 15:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Kept: It is well established Commons policy that we do not delete maps that are in use, even if controversial. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused text logo from a game marked (r) on the image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused image of apparently imaginary flag or banner, with description "abcdefg", out of COM:SCOPE, lacking in educational utility. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The border is from the internet, there's no metadata to suggest where the small image inside the border came from. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The border is from the internet, there's no metadata to suggest where the small image inside the border came from. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: and out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like some kind of advertisement with a link to facebook, out of COM:SCOPE for no promotional materials. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work of art photos surrounding subject. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
looks like it could be screencapped from this video [1] Dudek1337 (talk) 12:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio, uploaded by sock Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
"Permitted me to upload"... has no license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Info OTRS ticket received. In review ... --Scoopfinder(d) 13:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)- Keep. OTRS permission is alright. --Scoopfinder(d) 13:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination per Scoopfinder, OTRS received. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS was send and confirmed Jarekt (talk) 19:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Umrah srinagar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Ramzan umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:1 month umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Low cost umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Economy umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Dubai pacake agent in srinagar.jpg
- File:Dubai package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Resistered Visa agent in srinagar.jpg
- File:Approved visa agent in srinagar.jpg
- File:Document Attestation service in srinagar.jpg
- File:Top umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Deluxe umrah package from srinagar.jpg
- File:Umrah package for december 2015.jpg
Ies (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umrah srinagar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Allah mohammad.jpg
- File:Umrah srinagar.jpg
- File:Umrah.jpg
- File:Javed parveena.jpg
- File:Javec01111.png
- File:Best food in umrah.jpg
- File:Best umrah package.jpg
Ies (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umrah srinagar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Visa agent in srinagar.jpg
- File:V 1 F.jpg
- File:Umrah-Service-head.jpg
- File:Umrah-banner 2014 - 15.jpg
- File:Umrah time.jpg
- File:Umrah package rabi al awal-2014 - 15.jpg
- File:Umrah custom.jpg
- File:UMRAH CONFIRMATION.jpg
- File:UMRAH 14 -15.jpg
- File:T 10 F.jpg
- File:T 8 F.jpg
- File:Ramdhan first 15 days.jpg
- File:Ramdhan 03 copy F.jpg
- File:MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE UAE EMBASSY ATTESTATION.jpg
- File:K 2 F.jpg
- File:K 1 F.jpg
- File:GROUND TRANSFER EXCEL 11.pdf
- File:FINAL 22 DAYS UMRAH 2015 16.jpg
- File:Doc Attest.jpg
- File:Best economy word- 3n-4d F.pdf
- File:AWARD WINNING TRAVRL AGENT IN KASHMIR F copy.jpg
- File:Auuu.jpg
- File:Alqaswa 01.jpg
- File:Alqasswa travels.jpg
- File:Alqasswa travels (pvt) ltd.jpg
- File:ALQASSWA FLY.jpg
- File:Alqas35.jpg
- File:Alqas32.jpg
- File:Alqas31.jpg
- File:Alqas28.jpg
- File:Alqas27.jpg
- File:Alqas26.jpg
- File:Alqas25.jpg
- File:Alqas23.jpg
- File:Alqas22.jpg
- File:Alqas21.jpg
- File:Alqas20.jpg
_ltd.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 09:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Umrah srinagar (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Missing essential information such as license, permission or source - Using TheBellaTwins1445 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AnakarenNut (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 04:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rajat123456 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted image, not "own work", see watermark
Ies (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation Ymblanter (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope.
- File:K129 Railway Station (20151002200856).jpg
- File:K129 Railway Station (20151002200830).jpg
- File:K129 Railway Station (20151002200818).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ies (talk) 05:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 10:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: copyright status unclear Ymblanter (talk) 10:32, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Delete: image with no possible use and no educational value was part of a mass upload Ww2censor (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of scope Ymblanter (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Incorrect name LxAndrew 11:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: redirect deleted as useless Ymblanter (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Bob Bekian as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: the owner requested this image to be removed.. As free licenses are irrevocable, the request is invalid. But maybe we can delete it nevertheless as unused photo about non-notable persons. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope anyhow Courcelles 20:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dariovalero (talk · contribs)
[edit]low res files, missing exif. credited to various people on the internet eg. Foto/Cortesía Gennaro Pascale. Uploader has history of uploading copyrighted material to commons.
- File:Rodolfo Camacho.jpg
- File:Yosvangs Rojas.png
- File:Yosvangs Rojas.jpg
- File:Richard Ochoa.jpg
- File:Pedro Gutierrez.jpg
- File:Franklin Chacón.jpg
- File:Jonathan Salinas.jpg
- File:Cesar Salazar.jpg
- File:Jonathan Camargo.jpg
- File:Jose Alirio Contreras.jpg
- File:Rónald González.jpg
- File:Fernando Fontes.jpg
- File:Justo Galaviz.jpg
- File:John Nava.jpg
- File:Xavier Quevedo.jpg
- File:Arthur Garcia.jpg
- File:Yeison Delgado.jpg
- File:Gil Cordovés.jpg
- File:Juan Murillo.jpg
- File:Federacion Venezolana de Cicilismo logo.jpg
Dudek1337 (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: all are copyvios Courcelles 20:37, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Documents, newspaper, logo, book cover, poster. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:כמוך עמותה 1.pdf
- File:רב קהילה רון יוסף (1).pdf
- File:הסמכה לדיינות.pdf
- File:הרב אבינר והקרן לידידות2.JPG
- File:עמדת הרב אלישיב לגבי הקרן לידידות.JPG
- File:הרב אבינר והקרן לידידות.JPG
- File:דעתו של הרב אוירבך על תרומות מהקרן לידידות.JPG
- File:הרב מדרכי אליהו חוזר בו מהסכמתו לרב אקשטיין.JPG
- File:גילוי דעתו של הרב אברהם שפירא על הקב אקשטיין.JPG
- File:מכתב תודה של עדינה בר שלום.JPG
- File:הסכמת שנייה של הרב עובדיה לרב אקשטיין.JPG
- File:Community Rabbi.pdf
- File:הסמכה ראשונית.pdf
- File:Rabbi Ordination Certificate.pdf
- File:Hod logo.jpg
- File:מסמך עקרונות.pdf
- File:כרזת הו"ד 2010.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: File page without file. Yann (talk) 13:57, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Text only file, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per DR Mys_721tx (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Певица с 1926 года рождения, а дата создания файла 2010 года. Скорее всего фото опубликовано не авторм фото, а это скан. Dogad75 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should be deleted. Picture of 1950-ies (the sitter was born in 1926), could not be own work. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Сомнения в авторстве и лицензии. Певица с 1926 года рождения, а дата создания файла 2010 года. Скорее всего фото опубликовано не авторм фото, а это скан. Dogad75 (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Should be deleted. Picture of 1950-ies (the sitter was born in 1926), could not be own work. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. JuTa 16:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
bricio cardoso Lac~ptwiki (talk) 02:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Historical image. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: error Alan (talk) 18:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 04:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 06:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by GAMBarrios (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
These files have two problems. At first, there is no freedom of panorama in Greece and they are probably modern buildings. At second, the photos are small and they have no metadata, so own work is not sure, maybe copyright violations. Taivo (talk) 09:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Info: Duplicate of File:OTE tower in Thessaloniki, Greece.jpg. --Achim (talk) 13:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Taivo Alan (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
_01.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Good afternoon! I want to take part in european scientific photo competition,and downloaded this shot especially for it. Please, delete this photo, because now competition cannot use my photo. Artem Melnyk (talk) 09:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
- Keep: License is irrevocable. (Can we shut down this "Wiki Loves" Whatever silliness now? It seems to attract nothing but drama, 99% of bad photos, and unsavoury characters way more intesred in prizes than in contributing to free media.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 07:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
As author, I uploaded this photo by accident, so please delete it. I need to get this shot out of this site,because it came here accidentaly. Artem Melnyk (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: per Tuvalkin Alan (talk) 18:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
_01.JPG){kind=link}
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Derivative work. Photo of painting. Possible Copyvio. Redtigerxyz (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: dw Alan (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:Johnny Zito at SDCC.jpg
*file:Wikipic.jpg
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 11:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:Проспект Победы 2013.jpg
file:H9kKVABRZ30.jpg
Unused photos about non-notable persons are out of project scope. Also note bad filenames. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of project scope. Used in frequently-deleted en:Stephen Staley and in userspace page deleted at en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Philipharrison/Stephen Staley JohnCD (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by I.cool.pradeep (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 12:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omasilachi chinda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 12:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 18:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Appears to be a low-res scan of a promotional brochure or pamphlet put out by the Rajneesh organization from that time. Possible copyvio to the organization's copyright. Cirt (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- User Redheylin who uploaded the image and put a Public Domain license on it said that he scanned the image and that he "owns" it (I had asked him about the image on his talk page). Red, I look forward to your discussion here about the ownership. thanks! --Matt57 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it has been taken from a "promotional brochure or pamphlet" you'd be able to see the dots per square inch. I think you'll find you cannot as I scanned it high res from a half-plate print. This is a straightforward failure to assume good faith from a persistent edit-warrior. The image is my property. Any questions - contact me. Cheers to Matt and offtoriorob, who prevented this tawdry little prank from being tried without my knowledge. Redheylin (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Red, maybe Cirt forgot to let you know about the image deletion or maybe he was planning to do it but we did let you know so its ok. You shouldnt use terms like "tawdry little prank"/edit warrior in this context. I myself asked you about the image as you know. We'll see how the admins respond. I didnt get any response from you when I asked you how you were the owner (if you were the photographer or what?) and what was the origin of the image? --Matt57 (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- If it has been taken from a "promotional brochure or pamphlet" you'd be able to see the dots per square inch. I think you'll find you cannot as I scanned it high res from a half-plate print. This is a straightforward failure to assume good faith from a persistent edit-warrior. The image is my property. Any questions - contact me. Cheers to Matt and offtoriorob, who prevented this tawdry little prank from being tried without my knowledge. Redheylin (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Redheylin has been warned multiple times at en.wikipedia to stop making claims unsupported by anything against other editors, which amount to attacks. Despite this, he continues to do so. Cirt (talk) 11:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. These kinds of diffs will be useful in filing a RFC/U if/when it is time to do so. For now he has to prove ownership of this image. I seriously doubt he owns the image. He's likely not the photographer and likely not the legal owner of the image and he has yet to explain how he is the owner. --Matt57 (talk) 13:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete: until Redheylin provides proof or explanation of ownership. If no proof is given within the 7 day deletion time frame, it will be assumed a copyrighted image with no rights was uploaded. --Matt57 (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Matt, did not realise you were acting for Cirt, you should have said. You say that "it will be assumed a copyrighted image with no rights was uploaded" but I cannot find any grounds that you have advanced for such an assumption, which is certainly an assumption of bad faith, since I have freed the image into the public domain as being derived by me from an image I own. Since you have said "He's likely not the photographer and likely not the legal owner of the image" I am asking for your backing for this assertion which, without backing, appears to be a mere personal attack. Since digital publishing did not exist at the time, Cirt's theory that it is a reprint of a leaflet cannot be right - it would be 72dpi. You cannot find it elsewhere, since I have not made it available previously. Would you like to see more images from the same roll? Would you like to see it two thousand wide, raster, no print-dots, just paper grain? Five thousand? Is there some other claimant to it? Hard to know, as you give no reason for your claims. If you raise specifics I can answer. Redheylin (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Red, I'm not acting for anyone here. You know that I had asked you about the image before Cirt nominated it for deletion. I was not in touch with Cirt about this issue on/off-wiki and he did this on his own. So we're doing our own things.
- The specifics I'm asking are this: how are you making claims of being the owner of the image? For example were the photographs given to you by the photographer? In other words - how can one know that the image has not been scanned from a brochure, as Cirt points out? And if you do have other images that you really own, I hope you scan all of them and upload them. I wouldnt be saying this if my intention wasn't sincere.
- I've said all I wanted to say so I'll leave it up to the Commons admins to decide what they should do, or if they need more proof from you regarding the ownership of the image. --Matt57 (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with redhaylins position, if this picture is not to be found elsewhere, and there are no claims against red's assertion that it belongs to him then we should assume good faith that it is his picture, pictures like this of people becoming disciples of Bhagwan or darshans were freely given the people involved, I think red should be thanked for releasing this historic picture into the public domain. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Who took the photograph? Has the photographer released permission for its use by a free-use license? Cirt (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Hi Off2, I don't think it is that simple to scan a photo and release it into public domain on Commons. They have strict rules and only images that you actually legally own can be released into PD. Red said it was a scan from a half-plate print he has. Its up to the commons admins to decide if this is enough to approve the image. Ownership involves answering certain questions: (1) who took the photograph? (2) If he did not, does he have explicit permission from the photographer? (3) If the photograph had been sold to another person or organization, he needs explicit permission from them. Permission cant simply be assumed or taken for granted. If that was the case everyone would be scanning pictures and uploading them. In what way were the legal rights of the image transferred to Red? Thats the question to which he hasnt given any specific details other than "I own the image". Again maybe I'm missing something because I'm not a Commons admin so I'll leave it up to them to decide. --Matt57 (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would agree with redhaylins position, if this picture is not to be found elsewhere, and there are no claims against red's assertion that it belongs to him then we should assume good faith that it is his picture, pictures like this of people becoming disciples of Bhagwan or darshans were freely given the people involved, I think red should be thanked for releasing this historic picture into the public domain. Off2riorob (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, Matt, did not realise you were acting for Cirt, you should have said. You say that "it will be assumed a copyrighted image with no rights was uploaded" but I cannot find any grounds that you have advanced for such an assumption, which is certainly an assumption of bad faith, since I have freed the image into the public domain as being derived by me from an image I own. Since you have said "He's likely not the photographer and likely not the legal owner of the image" I am asking for your backing for this assertion which, without backing, appears to be a mere personal attack. Since digital publishing did not exist at the time, Cirt's theory that it is a reprint of a leaflet cannot be right - it would be 72dpi. You cannot find it elsewhere, since I have not made it available previously. Would you like to see more images from the same roll? Would you like to see it two thousand wide, raster, no print-dots, just paper grain? Five thousand? Is there some other claimant to it? Hard to know, as you give no reason for your claims. If you raise specifics I can answer. Redheylin (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
← DPI is a nonissue since you can make high resolution scans of anything these days. I think the numbered list that Matt came up with above this comment is the best way to proceed. If the uploader didn't take the photo himself, we need proof that there was a transference of copyright to them from the photographer, or proof the copyright holder agrees to license it freely. Redhelin, saying you "did not realise [Matt was] acting for Cirt" is not assuming good faith, and hypocritical to the very thing you're asking everyone else to do. I think the rhetoric in this discussion just needs to be toned down a little. It's not like we're out to harm anyone. We're just trying to figure out the copyright status of this image. Killiondude (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Cirt (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello Killiondude. There is an allegation of copyviolation on the grounds that I have allegedly uploaded copyright material from "a promotional brochure or pamphlet put out by the Rajneesh organization from that time (ie 1977)." No evidence has been put forward to support this and there is no counterclaim of rights. I have pointed out that a picture in a 1977 promotional brochure or pamphlet would be reproduced at a resolution that would cause visible dots, moire patterns etc. which are not visible here: there is nothing, then, intrinsic to the image to support the request, the opposite is so. I am looking at the complaint, answering it, seeking reasons for it, and therefore cannot understand your comment that "DPI is a nonissue since you can make high resolution scans of anything these days." Please explain how you can make a high resolution scan of a low resolution image today.
I have pointed out that the complainant failed to follow procedure by seeking deletion without informing uploader. And I have pointed out that, since the complainants have already assumed bad faith by questioning my stated right to upload, nothing is to be gained by my offering them any further account. Further, several more such allegations have been made recently on unrelated matters. Cirt and Matt57 have stated above that they intend to co-operate to gather information and diffs to obtain administrative action against me. I therefore suggest to you that this allegation is purely disruptive and based on assumption of bad faith.
Please note I am not "asking everyone else to do" anything at all except provide reasons for this allegation. But I'd ask you yourself to specify the Commons procedure you are following, and whether you support such actions as failure to inform uploader, and whether you are investigating the detail of the requester's allegation and looking for grounds for it - or else, please ask requester to broaden basis of request and point me to the "proofs" generally required for uploading ones own photos. Redheylin (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'll try to respond to all the points you brought up. Yes, it was wrong of Cirt not to notify you. However, everyone makes mistakes and I've even been guilty of forgetting to let people know about deletion discusses. It could have been a technical issue as well (if he has popups blocked on his internet browser, the script used to initiate the discussion probably wouldn't have been able to let you know). In any case, these discussions (no matter what the policy page says) aren't always closed in 7 days from initiation, so there's no need to feel rushed. The good news is that you know about the discussion now. :-) And yes, Matt and Cirt need to cease discussions about using your comments against you in a future RFC on Wikipedia. That doesn't help the discussion, and only creates a bad atmosphere. I now understand why you were concerned with the DPI, thanks for explaining that a little clearer. But you've never stated if you actually took this photo (or at least, I may have missed it if you did say so). Can you answer that question? We need to know the source and the author. If you took it, that would clearly answer both questions. If you didn't take it, we need "proof" from the creator that they release it under a free license. This is generally done by them sending an email to OTRS, which I am a volunteer OTRS member, and we try to examine the email and talk to the person to see if it all matches up. I hope that answered all your questions. If it didn't, please let me know and I will try to respond later. I will be away from a computer for several hours until later this evening. Killiondude (talk) 21:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- @Killiondude, yes I used a script in starting this, that may have been the issue. No, I did not comment about using any diffs from here in any other action. Cirt (talk) 21:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Killiondude "However, everyone makes mistakes" - yes, but I have just spent the intervening time responding to an ANI initiated by Cirt re. the same page to which this image was uploaded. This and other facts mean that AGF is wearing thin, and I am sorry about it but I do not see the matter in quite the same light. Right now I am responding to the reasons for deletion given - that this is taken from a leaflet or brochure of the Rajneesh organisation. I am intentionally limiting the amount of real-world information I give to what is necessary to deal with that claim and will not under any circumstances allow the complainants access to such information. My suggestion is that they approach that organisation and enquire. Good faith, it seems to me, would require that this was done BEFORE alleging copyvio. If, though, you'd care to dismiss this "reason for deletion" and initiate another enquiry yourself, as I said, on broader grounds that require the action you suggest, taking steps to mask realworld identities from non-involved parties, then the matter can be quickly taken care of. I have read the OTRS response and shall be happy to return it. Sorry about this, but hope you understand. Redheylin (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what all the fuss is about, there are thousands of pics all over the wikipedia that have been uploaded by good faith editors and the pictures have not even been questioned, why editors here are desperate to have this pic deleted is beyond me...I support the good faith situation here, as I said, when this photo was taken in the seventies and the Poona ashram, the pics were not claimed by anyone for copyright, the photographer would be a passer by who would be working for nothing, the pics at that time were given to involved people for free, this picture has not been published anywhere else, has it? and no one else is claiming copyright so I fail to see why not assuming good faith here is not the best way to advance,I would say one thing..the Osho dot com people are extremely hot on copyright and if they as the only other people that could claim copyright had any issues with this picture I assure you , wikipedia would have heard from their 1000 dollar an hour lawyers a couple of days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Killiondude "However, everyone makes mistakes" - yes, but I have just spent the intervening time responding to an ANI initiated by Cirt re. the same page to which this image was uploaded. This and other facts mean that AGF is wearing thin, and I am sorry about it but I do not see the matter in quite the same light. Right now I am responding to the reasons for deletion given - that this is taken from a leaflet or brochure of the Rajneesh organisation. I am intentionally limiting the amount of real-world information I give to what is necessary to deal with that claim and will not under any circumstances allow the complainants access to such information. My suggestion is that they approach that organisation and enquire. Good faith, it seems to me, would require that this was done BEFORE alleging copyvio. If, though, you'd care to dismiss this "reason for deletion" and initiate another enquiry yourself, as I said, on broader grounds that require the action you suggest, taking steps to mask realworld identities from non-involved parties, then the matter can be quickly taken care of. I have read the OTRS response and shall be happy to return it. Sorry about this, but hope you understand. Redheylin (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's not that, offtoriorob - I already offered to show them the whole spool. AND there's more. I see this thing as a breach of good faith, but there's no problem sorting this out with killiondude and I hope to put up a few others soon so it's best to get it clear. It is true, though, that the guidelines clearly allow me to upload the pic. OIF have never even seen these images, never mind published them. Redheylin (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Who took the photograph?
- Has the photographer released permission for its use by a free-use license?
Cirt (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe I have offered a full account of things to killiondude above, and that I have taken an inordinate amount of time to answer the reason for deletion you gave, considering that you have not offered the slightest evidence. I suggested above that your best course of action is to approach the organisation and ask them if they recognise any such pamphlet or leaflet and I still recommend tht, preferably BEFORE you assert it next time. I point out to you again that, since your allegation is based on a failure to assume good faith, it is futile to supply you with details. I shall work it out with killiondude. Redheylin (talk) 05:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader has not provided evidence that he is the copyright holder and has failed to answer Cirt's questions. Kameraad Pjotr 08:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
[edit]
I didn't realize that there was (mass chaos) relating to Cirt and Reheylin on WP:ANI. That explains some of the hostility here. Please remember that this is Commons, not Wikipedia. I'm saddened that the drama has crossed wikis, but what should I expect? I respectfully ask Cirt and Matt to disengage. In any case, off2rio and redheylin, you might be interested in Commons' precautionary principle which states that statements like “we can get away with it” aren't good enough for Commons. Redheylin, we need to know explicitly if you are the copyright owner, or if you can get the copyright owner to email OTRS. I might post a link on one of the administrator boards, to get more input/eyes into this matter. I feel like Redheylin has been treated a little unfairly here, and I want to keep this discussion simple and calm. Killiondude (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I am the owner, and I shall be happy to submit a statement to that effect. Redheylin (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Like the header!Redheylin (talk) 07:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Comment. "Owner" does not mean "copyright holder". I "own" several images that I cannot upload to Commons, because they are copyrighted by another person. Unless you can prove that you are the sole copyright owner of this work – not just that you have the image in your possession – it will and should be deleted. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll rephrase that. I am the sole owner and holder of all rights with respect to this image. Redheylin (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Keep I downloaded the image and had a look at it magnified. There are small vertical and horizontal bars which look just the same as lines in a picture, File:TANG.jpg that I uploaded and know to be a scanned photograph. I know that experience has shown that we cannot simply assume good faith as on the Wikipedia, but I don't see any positive reason to doubt Redheylin's statements. (It would help if this was kept a little less personal though.) --Simonxag (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Delete -- 1. Who took the photograph? 2. Has the photographer released permission for its use by a free-use license? -- These questions have not been sufficiently addressed. Cirt (talk) 19:00, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Uploader says that he can show more images from the same roll, and that he is the sole holder of all rights. No good reasons have been brought forward to doubt that statement. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Closed, per above. Kameraad Pjotr 08:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Possibly copyrighted. The image is available on various websites dated before the upload date. Sanskari (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with nominator, as argued, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. Alan (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Habe versehentlich die falsche Datei hochgeladen. Diese zeigt unverpixelte Personen Best regards / Freundlicher Gruß, Drcwg 13:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Taivo Alan (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Habe versehentlich die falsche Datei hochgeladen. Diese zeigt unverpixelte Personen Best regards / Freundlicher Gruß, Drcwg 13:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Taivo Alan (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Image is older, perhaps someone with better Russian than mine could take a look at the source, which is where the image appears and see if there is a date or something which would make this apparently 1903-1909 era photograph able to be kept. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all JuTa 02:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
There is no Freedom of Panorama in Russia for monuments. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 09:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- А из-за чего Вы хотите удалить это фото? Напишите по-русски: я по-английски не бум-бум. Ну, а если всё же будет принято решение удалить эту фотографию с Викисклада, то хотя бы оставьте на Ру-Вики Monoklon (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- В России нет свободы панорамы для памятников, поэтому их изображения загружать на Викисклад нельзя. В Википедии изображение останется. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- Ого какие ограничения! Ничего себе! Просто я стал массово перегружать свои собственные фотографии на Викисклад, попутно загрузив и это изображение. Monoklon (talk) 01:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- В России нет свободы панорамы для памятников, поэтому их изображения загружать на Викисклад нельзя. В Википедии изображение останется. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
- А из-за чего Вы хотите удалить это фото? Напишите по-русски: я по-английски не бум-бум. Ну, а если всё же будет принято решение удалить эту фотографию с Викисклада, то хотя бы оставьте на Ру-Вики Monoklon (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dr. Rampriy Pandey (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of uploads including book covers all claimed to be own work of uploader.
- File:Pratyangira12.jpg
- File:Pratyangira11.jpg
- File:Pratyangira10.jpg
- File:Pratyangira9.jpg
- File:Pratyangira8.jpg
- File:Pratyangira7.jpg
- File:Pratyangira6.jpg
- File:Pratyangira5.jpg
- File:Pratyangira4.jpg
- File:Pratyangira3.jpg
- File:Pratyangira2.jpg
- File:Pratyangira.JPG
- File:Divya Durga 07.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 06.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 05.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 04.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 02.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 03.PNG
- File:Divya Durga 01.JPG
- File:Swarnakarshan 05.PNG
- File:Swarnakarshan 04.PNG
- File:Swarnakarshan 03.PNG
- File:Swarnakarshan 02.PNG
- File:Swarnakarshan 01.JPG
- File:Amogh Rinapayan 05.PNG
- File:Amogh Rinapayan 04.PNG
- File:Amogh Rinapayan 03.PNG
- File:Amogh Rinapayan 01.JPG
- File:Amogh Rinapayan 02.PNG
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 44.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 43.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 42.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 41.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 40.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 39.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 38.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 37.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 36.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 1.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 35.jpg
- File:Shree Dakshin Kalika 34.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
No confidence that uploader has rights to license these images: two copies of a paris team logo, two copies of a field photo, a jersey, a crest and a logo... probably all COM:COPYVIOs.
- File:US Crйteil-Lusitanos logo.png
- File:Paris fchjjk-b.png
- File:Paris fc-b.png
- File:GJLYW;RI'U8;DDX.jpg
- File:HFBNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.jpg
- File:Hghfdhjmnbbbbbbbbbbbbbbk.png
- File:Gggjgfgnjtrsjrnsy.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I am not sure, does the logo surpasses threshold of originality or not. Taivo (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Licensing mismatch, English Wikipedia consideres this to be non-free, so I am querying if the threshold of originaility has been passed here. In any event it is not necessarily the uploaders own work as claimed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: by EugeneZelenko as a copyvio. Revent (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I cannot see an "educational" use for this image, and the title is very misleading. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: also File:Nu002.jpg for same reason. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Clearly not own work as claimed, Duplicate at enwiki is non-free. Who on Commons grants absolution? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
No notability. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation (book cover). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
duplicate of File:2013 Venetian Fete 5.jpg --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope : unused personal images
--Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work : very small without EXIF --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused personal image : out of scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio: listed as "Own work" but has Getty Images watermark DESiegel (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio: listed as "Own work" but has Getty Images watermark DESiegel (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio: listed as "Own work" but has Getty Images watermark DESiegel (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyvio: listed as "Own work" but has Getty Images watermark DESiegel (talk) 22:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Low quality preview of File:Гертруда Михайловна.jpg. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ayaz mangi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Ayaz mangi with nihal hashmi.jpg
- File:Ayaz mangi member sindh council pmln sindh.jpg
- File:Ayaz Mangi pmln sindh.jpg
- File:Ayaz mangi PMLN SINDH.jpg
- File:Ayaz mangi.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Cover of a book, no permission. Deleted before as File:CityMosaicCoverM72dpi.jpg (I remember it). ErikvanB (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Akarshan Mallik (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Out of scope: Non-existing flag without educational use Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Too low quality to be realistically useful for an educational purpose: Out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Personal pictures, not educationally useful.
AxeEffect (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Low quality photo with no apparent encyclopedic use. Outside of project scope. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused simple logo of non-notable thing is out of project scope. Bridcodes are unknown to en.wiki. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Krd 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Krd 06:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
From "resident evil" game. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this fan art for "Resident Evil". Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
All over the internet. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
copyrighted logo http://www.hythe-venetianfete.com/ --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Dubious copyright. Diego Grez return fire 22:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Didym (talk) 23:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by B787a300-600 (talk · contribs)
[edit]These images are clear cut copyright violations, as can be seen from this link.
- File:Meraj Air Livery 1.jpg
- File:Meraj Air Livery.jpg
- File:Meraj Air Livery 2.jpg
- File:Iran's CAO.jpg
101.186.121.215 02:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов 5.JPG
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов 3.jpg
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов 4.jpg
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов 2.jpg
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов.jpg
- File:Рафаиль Равилевич Каюмов 1.jpg
Ies (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bohemian018 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
- File:Andreja Apostolovic.jpg
- File:Aleksandar S Jovanovic Radnicki Nis.jpg
- File:Milan Rastavac.jpg
- File:SEK 9363-180x250.jpg
- File:Pedja stamenkovic.png
- File:Pedja stamenkovic.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: . Materialscientist (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
This appears to me a probable copyright violation. While the photograph may be the uploader's "own work", it is unclear the painting is--especially given that the uploader is focused on the museum where it hangs, having uploaded a number of different files regarding it. It's rather uncommon for a working and well known artist to give up their copyright to a museum-hung painting. So I believe the photograph is at best a derivative work (to the extent is qualifies for copyright protection), but that the painting shown is unlikely to have been released. --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Publication of 2D artwork photography not allowed in the USA (public or private) without explicit consent of the artwork author. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DW. JuTa 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
_02.JPG){kind=link}
_02.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Good afternoon! I want to take part in european scientific photo competition,and downloaded this shot especially for it. Please, delete this photo, because now competition cannot use my photo. Artem Melnyk (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
_02.JPG){kind=link}
- Good afternoon. This photo was stolen from me, so consequently You need this shot to delete. If there is a JUSTICE. Thank you Artem Melnyk (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- This photo was uploaded with a valid license by the same account which posted this deletion request. The claim of theft appears to be false. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: you cannot withraw the given license. JuTa 20:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
_02.JPG){kind=link}
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 10:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: older external souces found. JuTa 19:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Il formato png non supporta la compattezza dei colori (nero) Roberto.Amerighi (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request on uploading day. JuTa 19:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The obvious half-toning of this image makes it unlikely to be user's own work and more likely COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: an the depicted trophy is likely copyight protected as well. JuTa 19:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This older image is highly unlikely to be user's own work and more likely to be a COM:COPYVIO. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no (correct) source. JuTa 19:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unsharp, bad quality Motopark (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. JuTa 20:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
low size. not really useful. plenty of high quality photos available Category:Hiran Minar Saqib (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: good enough to keep. JuTa 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:Dreidemensionale Darstellung der Erde.jpg
I consider the files out of project scope. They are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This is derivative work. Newspaper is 67 years old, maybe enough old for public domain. Taivo (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- COM:CRT#Colombia says: "In all cases where a literary, scientific or artistic work has as its owner a legal entity or an official body or any institution under government public law, the term of protection shall be deemed to be seventy (70) years as from the date of publication." So the photo can be restored in 2019, when the copyright has expired. Taivo (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, if the image is cropped at the left border (to remove the drawings), the remaining content is likely below threshold of originality and could then go per PD-ineligible. --Túrelio (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Note that the uploader is a serial copyright violator with a whole zoo full of sockpuppets, so the photo is most likely not taken by the uploader. If it is cropped, it should also be perspective corrected so that any copyrightable, original aspects of the reproduction are also removed. —LX (talk, contribs) 17:37, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete copyrighted http://www.futbolred.com/liga-aguila/archivored-el-futbol-profesional-colombiano-cumple-67-anos+16238957?hootPostID=43cfff3c03b9a602b47b72b208b5393f --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- I want to add that if the source is an unfree artwork we can not crop it or modify in the purpose to obtain a simple text, it will be a copyvio. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per Christian Ferrer --Diego Grez return fire 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: too young. JuTa 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:ESCUDO-8-ESTRELLAS-SIN-BORDE-FONDO-BLANCO.jpg
Maybe the logo violates club's copyright, because surpasses threshold of originality. These are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:Kamel Chebli.jpg
file:Khaled Touati.jpg
Tunesian photos need 50 years for public domain, but this is 1984 photo. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as per the license template: Before July 5, 2009, a photographic work was protected for 25 years. Pictures created before July 5, 1984 have already been placed into the public domain. -- Liliana-60 (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you, I did not notice that. But I discovered another problem: source link is incorrect. Taivo (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no source JuTa 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
"life of the author plus 70 years" without naming the author, the mentioned book likely contains authorship information that the uploader failed to check LoveToLondon (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
no indication of research done by the uploader confirming that the author is really anonymous, or which copytight law applies (Russia, Germany or Switzerland would be among the most likely options) LoveToLondon (talk) 12:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no source. JuTa 20:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- It appears to be a profile photo of some kind which appears on other websites: Youtube and Feministstories.com. Also used to identify her when listing speakers here. Unfortunately no dates, and I can only find the thumbnails from Youtube and Feministstories.com but not the full-resolution copies. --Stefan4 (talk) 23:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: likely not a selfie. JuTa 20:52, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyright violation Tfda tapro (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: yep. JuTa 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
unused duplicate of File:Logo microsoft powerpoint 2013.llll.png. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Nice image, but a bit small. Inscription is difficult to read. Better version available at File:Hans Holbein (II) Portrait of Robert Cheseman (1485-1547) Mauritshuis 276.jpg. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
_Portrait_of_Robert_Cheseman_(1485-1547)_Mauritshuis_276.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep: In use. Different snapshots of the same reproduction can coexist. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use JuTa 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ManFromNord as no permission. He also adden some new source an author links and removed the given license {{Nationaal Archief-license}}, which looks to me valid. Perhaps I'm missing something but I don't see what. JuTa 17:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- There's no license available. See this photo (Auteursrechthebbende Nationaal Archief. Cc-by-sa) and this photo (AccuSoft Inc., All rights reserved). Do you understand? --ManFromNord (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, doesn't this link mean images on Nationaal Archief are generaly published under CC? --JuTa 20:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- No it doesn't, only pictures with the cc-by-sa logo are available to use. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm, doesn't this link mean images on Nationaal Archief are generaly published under CC? --JuTa 20:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: got convinced. JuTa 20:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The work shown here is clearly not 2-D, so the photo, taken from a website, is not PD-Art. Rosenzweig τ 19:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The sculpture makes this a derivative work. As it seems the central focus of the image, I don't think any de minimis exception applies. Certainly there's nothing in the upload information to lead us to believe the uploader is the copyright owner of the statue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The sculpture is displayed outside the museum and is a striking example of public art. Public art is, by definition, placed in the public domain to be enjoyed and used by the public. There is no copyright violation in taking photos of public art. Rather, public art is treated as nature: yours for the shooting and enjoying. I wish to undo the deletion of this image. Pam McP— Preceding unsigned comment added by PamMcP (talk • contribs)
- Hey Pam. I wish it was as simple as that (and that your statement was correct but it is not). I want Wikipedia to have great images, and I want the article you are working on to succeed and have the best images to enhance it that it can. At the same time I am involved and care about making sure Wikipedia (and Wikimedia) properly only host and display legal images and text and that it does not infringe on copyright. In short, the U.S. does not have freedom of panorama:
See also Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US. This does not necessarily mean this image is a copyright violation, cannot be used, and must be deleted. It would be acceptable to remain here, and to be displayed at Wikipedia, if:"For artworks, even if permanently installed in public places, the U.S. copyright law has no similar exception, and any publication of an image of a copyrighted artwork thus is subject to the approval of the copyright holder of the artwork".
- 1) the owner of the statue's copyright had actually provided it a suitably-free license or released it into the public domain;
ii) its installation was prior to 1923; or
iii) its installation was prior to 1978 and no actual copyright notice was displayed (nor did the artist prevent people from copying or photographing the work until 1978).
- 1) the owner of the statue's copyright had actually provided it a suitably-free license or released it into the public domain;
- However any claim of meeting these standards would need to be demonstrated. You seem involved with this museum, and therefore are likely much better situated than I am to find the answer to that question and provide proof. But understand that the burden is on the uploader. For copyright, we assume full non-free ownership unless we have evidence to the contrary. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
It stated that this file comes from friesian.com, which is "all rights reserved". It also stated this file cannot be used for commericial purposes without permission. And this file does not have any permission to use their material for commercial purposes. Also not own work. Files that can only be used for non-commercial purposes are not allowed in Commons. See Commons:Licensing. Pokéfan95 (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
File:Soun Hojo.jpg
[edit]
a photo of a statue in Japan is not allowed(copyright vio) at Wikimedia commons.due to Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Japan--Kentin (talk) 07:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Sie ist doppelt vorhanden. Der richtige Name der Datei ist "Glas mit Herbststrauß". KlausWH (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristian José VM (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 09:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Isn't it copyrighted music? At least license "I, the copyright holder ..." is wrong. Taivo (talk) 11:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lifnszgainss (talk · contribs)
[edit]Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be an own work for this scan --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:Jet-vs-fighter.jpg
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photos are so small? Can you upload bigger versions, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload versions with EXIF data? Taivo (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This is small photo without metadata. Author is The PK, uploader Foce Leewo. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- also file:University Of Swat Logo..jpg
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The photo is taken from book. Uploader claimed, that the book was published under free license. This needs evidence, maybe OTRS-permission from book author PK. Taivo (talk) 12:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? Can you describe and categorize the file correctly? Taivo (talk) 13:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Monsieur Jean-Pierre Castaldi souhaite que cette photo ne soit plus utilisée sur le web. Merci d'utiliser celle ci: Jean-Pierre Castaldi 2015.jpg ChristopheDelire (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bonjour, pouvez vous verser votre image sur Commons ? Tel quel on ne sait pas à quoi elle ressemble ni si elle est sous licence libre. En vous remerciant. --Thesupermat (talk) 15:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Re, j'ai pris le temps de chercher et j'ai trouvé l'image "officielle" De Mr Castaldi. La difficulté, c'est qu'elle est estampillé d'un ©bestimages et lorsque l'on consulte le site de cette agence photographique, le premier paragraphe des conditions générales stipule "Les droits moraux et patrimoniaux des photographies présentées sur ce site sont la propriété unique et intégrale de leurs auteurs, le client s'interdit de les céder, fut-ce à titre précaire ou gratuit, de les prêter de les louer à nouveau". En conséquence, en l'état, cette photo et sa dérivé ne remplissent pas les conditions légales pour être versées sur Commons. --Thesupermat (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Bonsoir, supprimer quoi ? Ma photo ? Celle importée par le demandeur ? --Thesupermat (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: in use. JuTa 21:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mysterious Whisper as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://terravivos.com/secure/indiana.htm%7C1=Bottom of page: "© 2009 - 2015 The Vivos Group, Del Mar, California Vivos is a Registered Trademark All Rights Reserved"
Converted to DR, as the uploader has commented "This image was taken by me personally. I own the copyright. I have provided it for use on Wikimedia Commons in conformance with the policy guidelines."[2]. However, EXIF data for this image and for the version on the external website state "Copyright Dante Vicino". Túrelio (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Vivos_Indiana_Main_Living_Area.jpg&oldid=174200110){kind=link}
- Delete: It turns out, User:Pius Source is User:Vivos Command/User:Shelterist. If we assume their comment: "This image was taken by me personally. I own the copyright." is true, and the EXIF data for this image and for the version on the external website state "Copyright Dante Vicino", we can deduce the identity of that/those user/users. However, this is largely irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is the copyright notice in the EXIF, as well as on the linked website, clearly shows this picture is copyrighted and therefore can't be kept here, at least until and unless the image or the copyright is removed from the linked website.
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Персональні дані. Arxivist (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Threshold of orignality concern (UK), Duplicate at enwiki is non-free. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Delete The TOO in the UK is very low, and this is above it IMO. - Fma12 (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Henrique Chappuis Ramos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Davide Boriane - Obra -PH scope 1964-66-.JPG
- File:Julio Le Parc by Julio Lagoscid.tif
- File:Sphère rouge by Julio Le Parc.tif
- File:Julio Le Parc - Obra -Lumière Alternée-.jpg
- File:Jeongmoon Choi - Obra -In.visible-.jpg
- File:Yumi Kori - Obra- -Haruka - Defragmentation - MON-.jpg
- File:Doug Wheeler - Obra -Untitled, 1969-2013-.jpg
- File:Ivan Navarro Obra Relay- Pause Creditos FelipeCensi.jpg
- File:Ivan Navarro Obra Cara Metade Creditos Felipe Censi.jpg
- File:Dan Flavin - Obra -Untitled (fondly to Helen)-.jpg
- File:Carlo Bernardini 2 - Obra -Invisible Dimensions- (1).jpg
- File:Carlo Bernardini - Obra -Invisible Dimensions-.jpg
- File:Bill Viola - Obra -Three Women-.jpg
- File:Bill Viola Catedral.jpg
- File:Adriana Varejão - Obra -Altar-.jpg
-.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Song. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Uploader claims that they own the rights to this organization's logo but does not show evidence of this. – czar 15:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Request immediate review: No confidence that any of these small size (all less than the infamous 720px) images are the own work of uploader and more likely COM:COPYVIOs probably from Facebook. I doubt if a photographer of this quality intends to fully open these images to the public domain. Two other works in this series were speedied.
- File:Kaziranga5.jpg
- File:Kaziranga4.jpg
- File:Kaziranga2.jpg
- File:Kaziranga3.jpg
- File:Kaziranga1.jpg
- File:AsutoshKashyap5.jpg
- File:AsutoshKashyap4.jpg
- File:AsutoshKashyap3.jpg
- File:AsutoshKashyap2.jpg
- File:Asutoshkashyap1.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The main building of Belarusian State University (to the right of the photo) designed by Mikhail Bakanov (Russian: Михаил Бакланов; 1914-1990). Jarash (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Not the main object in the photo --Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The sculptor of the main object in the photo (the sculpture of the coat of arms) is Oleg Kupriyanov (Russian: Олег Куприянов, b. 1966) --Jarash (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cuculeme200 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these small sized images was created by uploader: Two photos, a couple of logos and a signature all seem to be more a promotional or biopic upload than ""own work"".
- File:SNRTV.jpg
- File:Yashaii Moran VV (4).JPG
- File:Q Channel.jpg
- File:Yashaii Garcia Productions (Logo 2016).png
- File:Yashaii Moran pic 1.JPG
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP Alan (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Unused duplicate of File:Word2016mac.PNG. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Statue from the 1970s, protected 70 years after the death of the artist 4ing (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:FOP Alan (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Statue of Poseidon by Nina Sundbye (b. 1944) (http://www.sb.no/skulpturbyen/skulpturbyen/poseidon/s/2-2.428-1.6291094). No freedom of panorama for statues in Norway. 4ing (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Statue "Fea" by Solveyg W. Schafferer (b. 1928) ([3]). No freedom of panorama for statues in Norway. 4ing (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
«Hvalfangstmonumentet» (the whaling monument) by Knut Steen (1924-2011). No freedom of panorama for statues in Norway. 4ing (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
,_Sandefjord.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Sandefjord.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
«Hvalfangstmonumentet» (the whaling monument) by Knut Steen (1924-2011). No freedom of panorama for statues in Norway. 4ing (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
,_Sandefjord.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
,_Sandefjord.JPG){kind=link}
"Møte" by Alessandro Stenicos (living). No freedom of panorama for sculptures in Norway 4ing (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
fichier de mauvaise qualité Falimalala (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request on upload day. JuTa 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
fichier de mauvaise qualité Falimalala (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: uploaders request on upload day. JuTa 21:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Fix of incomplete DR --Achim (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
请求删除原因：与其他文件和页面完全重复 File:Qingdao-DDG-113.jpg --颐园新居 3 October 2015
- Keep: There are 3 similar images, one original from the US Navy, one cropped derivative, and this is the only one which has been corrected by rotation. --Achim (talk) 18:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: . JuTa 21:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
By folowing the link of the source, as this is a scan there is no evidence the mentioned author is really the author --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep "Delete because it has the word 'scanned' in the title" is not a valid reason for deletion.
- This is sourced from Flickr and has an acceptable CC-by licence. It is credited to the owner of that Flickr account. There is no indication whatsoever that this is not the work of the Flickr uploader, just the same as we happily accept for much of Commons content. The nominator has given no credible reason to disbelieve this. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom --Diego Grez return fire 20:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: borderline case, but COM:PRP JuTa 21:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- also file:Cyberfox ユーザーアイコン.png - renamed to File:Cyberfox logo.png
Maybe the logos are published under free license, but correct license is needed. At least license "I, the copyright holder ..." is wrong. The logos surpass threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 12:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC) - Keep: Doing a deeper search (that is the first that we should do before nominating):
- File:Waterfox icon for user.png: The official logo and the Firefox Developer Edition logo found in the Waterfox's official repo at GitHub, both of them licensed under the MPL2 (neither document inside the repo contradicts the licensing of the logos in specific). Is better to replace this file with the official version (replaced).
- File:Cyberfox ユーザーアイコン.png: according to its official Website, Cyberfox & Cyberfox logos are trademarks of the 8pecxstudios ™ - Trademark and Copyright© 2012-2015 8pecxstudios ™ (InternalError503 at GitHub) (but no All rights reserved statement). The Cyberfox's official repo at GitHub have the logo as part of the source, licensed under the MPL2, in the same way as Waterfox.
- In these cases, is better to ask to the developwes if these logos are actually licensed under the MPL2, but I have few or nothing doubts of them. For now, I added {{MPL2}} to the both files. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Too late? I just opened an Issue in the Waterfox repo at GitHub. Also, I filed a Bug report to 8pecxstudios ™ (that don't use GitHub to file issues). --Amitie 10g (talk) 09:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
- Info: I just received an email from 8pecxstudios, and the answer confirms that the license of the Cyberfox logo is the MPLv2 (no explicit permission needed). I forwarded the message to OTRS with the Ticket#2015101910026515, just to take aknowledge about that; in a nutshell: The Cyberfox Brand and Logo are copyrighted, trademarked, and licensed in the same way as Firefox, and permission to use the logo in a Wiki like Commons is granted by the MPLv2.
- And about the Waterfox logo case, the Issue is still not answered, but according to the licensing, the logo should be MPLv2, too, unless MrAlex94 or the developers says otherwise and reflects that in the Repo. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- Delete til copyright status gets clearer --Diego Grez return fire 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
- Copyright status is quite clear. At least 8pecxstudios ™ confirmed that the Cyberfox logo is licensed under the MPLv2, and OTRS member can confirm that. And about the Waterfox, well... the issue is not answered yet, but in absense of any document indicating separate licensing, the Waterfox logo is MPLv2 as part of the source code. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: look OK to me. JuTa 21:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nt as Copyvio (copyright): but no reason was given. To speedy a file, proof of claim must be provided. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: lots of external google hits. JuTa 21:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia logo isn't own work... Don't we have one in every language? Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Keep: In use. And, is not better and easier to edit the description and add {{Copyright by Wikimedia}}, instead of nominating for deletion? --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- The picture will eventually have to be deleted because of a grammar mistake, but it would be nice if it could be kept until a new one is made. You said you already have one in every language, does that mean there's an older logo for Lule Sami language (smj)? (I'm still rather inept at navigating these pages...) --Gadnihasj (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Gadnihasj There's a page [4] and also a Category:Wikipedia logo, v2. The image you seek may be there. As Amitie 10g said, just change the copyright tag from self to what she put there and make a note here when you've changed the license. When done, it should look like "{{Copyright by Wikimedia}}" in the license field and no "self" tags. Cheers! Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Kept: description page had been corrected. JuTa 21:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Well-known picture from newsreel, 1945 (see on youtube, HINaDtR55U8?t=1m50s ), published in many places. It cannot be "an own work" of the uploader. V1adis1av (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. JuTa 21:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Copyright status of this picture of Mao Zedong and W.E.B. Du Bois is dubious as far as it is yet published at http://dbhsharlemrenaissance3.wikispaces.com/W.E.B.+DuBois (though here we have the different printing). Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: no license at all. JuTa 21:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
