Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/02/16
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Ohfrxdj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.219.27.148 (talk • contribs) 2016-02-15T22:35:47 (UTC)
The page does not exist. No reason for deletion given. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:DASD.JPG
操作のテストを行ったところ、誤って公開してしまいました。 Yo-ichi (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- 意図しないアップロードの場合、即時削除を依頼することが可能です。もし、次回、同様の事態がありましたら、
{{SD|G1}}をお忘れなく。 - In the case of a involuntary upload, you can request speedy deletion.--Kkairri (talk) 18:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Rillke: Accidental creation: Special:Diff/187731531
This video show some 2d artworks (date, authors?) but also some architectural works (date of artist death?). As per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Slovenia we need more information to know if the file can be kept. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- oh, I just see it's a XIIth castle, so then it may be ok for the architectural works, but what about the paintings? they are not de minimis and they can modern. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep It shows portrait of previous owners of the castle - File:Sigismund von Herberstein in russian dress1.jpg and File:Eduard Lannoy.jpg and portraits of some musicians (Beethoven, Liszt) and some others. They are all PD. --Sporti (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ok thanks or the links but until the other paintings are not clearly identified, there is no evidences that they are contempory to the musicians and that they are indeed all in PD, for info they are at time 3:25 ; 3:50 ; 3:53 . Screenshots made at these timelaps can not be considered as de minimis, thus the source of these artworks must be precised and be free. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Ok so:
- ~3:25 - can't be 100% sure for the second portrait (probably from [1]), but looks like a standard portrat paintings from the period.
- ~3:50-3:55 - File:Canaletto (I) 058.jpg, File:Beethoven.jpg, File:Franz Liszt 1858.jpg, File:Johannes Brahms portrait.jpg.
--Sporti (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination Ok fine for me, thank you. Sorry for the incovenance and congratulation for the good work of searching. Regard, Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. --Yann (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
besseres Bild verfügbar: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ratisbonia_%28Doeberl%29.jpg Mehlauge (talk) 11:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Not the same rendition and not duplicate (there is not "better" CoA). No valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 12:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --McZusatz (talk) 18:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Modern19999 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-created artwork without obvious educational use, files are unused, likely posted to Commons as a means of image hosting. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
no FoP is Syria for this. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Syria Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- You right. Thank you.Saman-1984 (talk) 11:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Probably all the paintings are not own work. Derivative work of modern paintings. Taivo (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
and File:Kolios Bakopoulos 1.jpg wich is the same picture. No educational value, face generated by a software called morpheus using his descendants photos (claimed here by the author) and then photoshoped to another mans portrait [2] Ah3kal (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
No educational value, face generated by a software called morpheus using his descendants photos (claimed here by the author) Ah3kal (talk) 18:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a work by de:Babrak Wassa, and he seems unrelated to the linked website. There is no evidence of permission from Babrak Wassa. Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
As the uploader correctly noted, the metadata has a clear "all rights reserved" copyright notice and shows that it was not created by an officer employee of the US Government, but by United Technologies. The "Photo By: Courtesy" note at the source is another indication that this is a non-free photo and that the other claim at the source, that the photograph is "considered public domain", is unfounded. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The image does indeed appear to not be, verifiably, a USMC photo. What I find 'telling' is that the image is not on DVIDS, while actual US military images are consistently found there. The source website is quite likely in error, and I don't think we can reasonably 'assume' this is actually PD without asking for verification. Revent (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Eventually a PD image of this aircraft will come across the site, but for now best to drop this one. - FOX 52 (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Nexus 6P
[edit]Doubtful own work claims.
Lewis Hulbert (talk) 23:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Extremely low resolution makes me suspect a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:54, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- That the uploader was en:User:Chinmayadunster make me suspect a promo job. // Liftarn (talk)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I can't find this photo at the stated source [3], and stated source is all rights reserved. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Wilfredo vargas lapa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal files, out of project scope.
— TintoMeches, 23:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
6 years old useless promo picture from a dead personnal music project. I want to delete it. Aphexofdeath (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
6 years old useless promo picture from a dead personnal music project. I want to delete it. Aphexofdeath (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
6 years old useless promo picture from a dead personnal music project. I want to delete it. Aphexofdeath (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
6 years old useless promo picture from a dead personnal music project. I want to delete it. Aphexofdeath (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader's request. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of http://www.exirbroadcasting.com/Portals/5/docs/Kataloger/Rigid%20Line.pdf at page 7 Glrx (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparent copyvio of http://www.exirbroadcasting.com/Portals/5/docs/Kataloger/Rigid%20Line.pdf at page 2 Glrx (talk) 03:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE eurodyne (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE eurodyne (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Modern19999 - Using VisualFileChange.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Modern19999 - Using VisualFileChange.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Modern19999 - Using VisualFileChange.
Self-created artwork without obvious educational use. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Modern19999 - Using VisualFileChange.
replaced by File:Pyridalyl structuur.png Kopiersperre (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as I uploaded a new version with higher quality, but with –CF3 drawn explicitly. --Leyo 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Leyo's new upload. Now it's similarly high quality and with an alternate and reasonably-useful choice of drawing style. DMacks (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: New version uploaded to address concerns. Ed (Edgar181) 00:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- File:Sodium orthophenyl phenol ball-and-stick.png - also this file
These two files do not depict a plausible conformation. The two phenyl rings should not be coplanar. See the related compound File:Biphenyl 3D.png for an example of what a low energy conformation looks like in a biphenyl. Ed (Edgar181) 19:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete true. And also the "Sodium..." one is not even the correct chemical formula (if it's the sodium salt of a phenol, there would be no H on the O). DMacks (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
--MarinaVladivostok (talk) 20:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I've uploaded new versions of files.
Kept: Withdrawn. Both have been replaced with images that address the concerns. Ed (Edgar181) 00:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission. Revent (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Needs discussion... the speedy by the bot was 'correct', but this is possibly below the TOO... just not, in my opinion, 'obviously' enough so to just change it myself. Revent (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment Very similar, though probably unrelated to Cyrillic letter Fita (wikipedia/commons). djr13 (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 19:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Because it does not in fact originate from the US Government. My name is Lindsay Peacock and this is part of a sequence of images of this aircraft that I took while flying with the 119th FIS on 14 October 1983. I do not know how you came to use, although it has been published in at least one British aviation magazine. I suspect that it has been copied without my permission. As I still claim copyright of this image, I would be grateful if you would remove it. Partly because of a lack of authorisation, but also because the quality of reproduction is very poor. Should you wish to contact me directly, you can do that at: lindsay.peacock@homecall.co.uk. I look forward to your reply. 92.29.91.241 08:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per request... image is one of many uploaded by the same editor with similar poor sourcing, as has recently come to our attention. (Literally hundreds have been flagged for likely deletion in the past few days). Revent (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per blatant copyright violation. Thanks for letting us know about this Lindsay, and feel free to let us know in the future if any more of your images are on this site. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as a copyright violation; many thanks to the original copyright holder for getting in touch with us and being so patient with our procedures. --odder (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
это не модуль памяти SDRAM DIMM, а модуль SDRAM DDR - они отличаются конструктивно, в частности у модуля DIMM два ключа (вместо одного у DDR). Думаю, что надо сменить рисунок - может ввести в заблуждение.
Kept, No valid reason for deletion, if you wish a file to be renamed, see COM:RENAME. Riley Huntley (talk) 09:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
PUF. Not sure if there's a valid license one could add after removing one that was invalid. One could guess the intention... Machine Description+Source translation from Catalan: Images of the second museum project of the Museum of Vielha Aran Valley. This project was conducted under the direction of Jusep Boya and Busquets in 2006. Picture made by the technical museum Monica Rodriguez. Date 13 September 2010, 13:15:38 Source Photographs provided by the author to Wikipedia's article titled Aran Valley Museum. Elvey (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Same for File:Musèu dera Val d'Aran. Segon projecte museogràfic. 02.jpg.--Elvey (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 01:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as imho potentially non-free content (2016 Kerala film poster), as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Could someone have a look at this site? It seems always to contain spam only. LacoR (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Talk page without project page Commons:Upload/lang, created by an IP, by now used for trash only. --Achim (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per above. --Achim (talk) 16:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Source contains a note stating that the copyright is reserved. Kelly (talk) 14:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Should be that copyright notice relevant for this 156 years old work? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- We don't know where and when it was first published. Kelly (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep :1860? Is what it says. We don't know when (exactly) and where (precisely) many famous images of antiquity were published...... and lots of people slap copyright reserved on stuff that they have no right to. Picturethepast is just a fishing trip for people who will buy something even though the seller has no rights over it. It is wikimedia's mission to make information available as long as there is no legal! claim. The claim here is clearly just to catch those who do not know copyright law. We need to publish pictures like this Kelly - thats our mission. Victuallers (talk) 18:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per Victuallers. --Riley Huntley (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1981 monument - centered and prominent in photo - doesn't meet COM:DM INeverCry 08:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Monument is modern and under copyright. --Storkk (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Monument to the Motherland (1981). Listed ID 80-382-0200. Base. - Pechersk Raion, Kiev.jpg
[edit]No FoP in Ukraine - 1981 monument INeverCry 08:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Monument is modern and under copyright. --Storkk (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1982 monument INeverCry 08:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Monument is modern and under copyright. --Storkk (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine - 1982 monument INeverCry 08:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, there is no Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Monument is modern and under copyright. --Storkk (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
The file is called a selfie, but watermark in bottom right corner says: "Akshay's photography". OTRS-permission from Akshay is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 12:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
File used only (so far as I can see) in an attack page (now deleted) on English Wikipedia, and judging by the file name, intended only for attack purposes. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Storkk (talk) 12:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
appealing speedy deletion tag. This page should remain. The page highlights the authoritative nature of the architectural drawings, in that their author is a professional architect and preservation activist. Images of old buildings are of wide educational interest, and widely covered in Wikipedia. This account contributes such educational content. We hold the estate & full rights to these images, which we are willing to share. See also discussion on Motopark's talk page WalterKittel (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: Misuse of User page. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - I see no policy-based reasons for deletion. The nearest thing we have to policy on user pages is Commons:Project scope/Pages, galleries and categories, which gives some reasons for deletion, but none of those apply here. The core problem is that the uploads so far are drawings that are purported to be by the deceased architect. Since he seems to have died only 34 years ago, his works would normally be protected until January 2052. However the user claims to act for the estate. The appropriate avenue would be OTRS, through which they can demonstrate they are authorised to upload these images (bearing in mind that any buildings he designed in Germany are covered by freedom of panorama). If it is accepted through OTRS then the information on this user page can be moved to an appropriate Category:Walter Kittel and a Creator:Walter Kittel template. Until then, let's leave this userpage alone unless there is some clear vandalism or it is an attack page. FredWalsh (talk) 14:41, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm AGF but a user page of a Wikimedia user who died more than 30 years ago looks somewhat strange to me. --Achim (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's not the best way to look at this. The user is not the dead person. They claim to be responsible for his estate. This is no different to a person who works for an Institution. We should not assume that such a user is the institution itself. This is a new user who, in good faith, has added a description but didn't immediately understand that there are other places where this information can be placed. They don't mean any harm by doing this nor have they engaged in attacking another person or in image vandalism. Assuming good faith means that we guide this new user. We can recommend that they choose a new username and ask for a rename at Meta. We can recommend that they send an email to OTRS to demonstrate they do represent the estate and can license their uploads. We can recommend the creation of an appropriate category and a creator template for use on file pages.
- Instead we are suspecting the new user of misusing their userpage. We are debating the deletion of information that would quite legitimately sit at the top of a category page. I empathise because I had an angry response when I started here and it almost put me off contributing. We seem to have a mistrust of genuine new users, but I have been reading pages here and on English Wikipedia that suggest this is a chronic problem. FredWalsh (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- @WalterKittel: If you are not WalterKittel the account schould be renamed to avoid misunderstandings. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi all, thanks for the comments and insights. From my perspective, it's as FredWalsh describes, I tried to be transparent on User page, and help people trace the origin of the architectural drawings in case they are interested, including naming where more such content can be found (in an official city archive). I put one additional external link, to highlight Walter Kittel's work in preservation (as it's informative to understand that he worked in that field, for those interested in architecture). I thought this was in line with "providing information about contributors, especially information which is relevant to those contributions." I am happy to change and rename, if that helps. Ideally I would prefer a name and user page that remains clear & transparent. We'd be happy to provide all details, also to OTRS (I had asked on Commons village pump on this, but not received a response), we have the rights. I'd be really grateful for guidance. I am a contributor to Wikipedia, but so far struggled a bit here on WikiCommons. Who can help me on the next steps to take? WalterKittel (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- @WalterKittel: If you are not WalterKittel the account schould be renamed to avoid misunderstandings. --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'm AGF but a user page of a Wikimedia user who died more than 30 years ago looks somewhat strange to me. --Achim (talk) 14:59, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- @FredWalsh: thank you for your help. I have requested a change of user name at meta:SRUC, and will write to OTRS. I will try that with the category and creator, though I am worried about getting myself into even more trouble. I looked at this process for an hour, and still don't entirely understand it. Can I do anything about the DR, and the tag? I'll do whatever I am told, but I just don't want to make any mistakes that open up other problems. WalterKittel (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Name change completed! WK Zeichnungen (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @WK Zeichnungen: You're welcome. I wouldn't worry about this deletion request. You've addressed the main concerns. In due time, an admin will close the request. I have created the category because OTRS have confirmed one of the images you uploaded. I can't imagine there being problems with any of your other uploads. FredWalsh (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @FredWalsh: thank you! Help much appreciated and will do my best to contribute here! WK Zeichnungen (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Name change completed! WK Zeichnungen (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- @FredWalsh: thank you for your help. I have requested a change of user name at meta:SRUC, and will write to OTRS. I will try that with the category and creator, though I am worried about getting myself into even more trouble. I looked at this process for an hour, and still don't entirely understand it. Can I do anything about the DR, and the tag? I'll do whatever I am told, but I just don't want to make any mistakes that open up other problems. WalterKittel (talk) 06:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Storkk (talk) 12:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused (jpg) logo. No clear scope. Josve05a (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo. No clear scope. Josve05a (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused (jpg) logo. No clear scope. Josve05a (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Superfluous. Near-dentical with File:Saint Nicholas 18th cent serbian IMG 0448 serb museum szentendre.JPG. Zoupan (talk) 00:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
creators will 최광모 (talk) 01:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kwangmo: I think it's a rather good and interesting image, why do you want to delete it? same question for 1, 2 and 3 --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
- thank you for concern. I did it since the files tagged with wrong infromation, data. I did so because it was almost my first uploading such large numbers of file. I recently began to clear and modify my past contributions and photos of 2004~2015 was left. the photo was taken in 2013 so I will upload it about a year later. I have the photos and sure will upload it because I know that it has quality. thank you again. 최광모 (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
- also they are duplicated with the files in 2013년 4월 서울특별시 119특수구조단 수난구조대 활동 사진. 최광모 (talk) 08:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete Natuur12 (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
dup with Kowaterres32.jpg 최광모 (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: ok now. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
dup with 140903방배119안전센터03.JPG 최광모 (talk) 01:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is not realistically useful for an educational purpose. — Rebbing talk 04:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused logo of questionable notability. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused logo of questionable notability, out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, maybe out of scope but in all cases it is above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely out of scope but obviously above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Self promotional Edslov (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely out of scope but obviously above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by అశోక్ కట్టేసాయిరి (talk · contribs)
[edit]Own works ? see https://plus.google.com/104358348300863571932/photos
2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 05:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, one obvious copyvio, delete the other per PRP, but in all cases both are very blurred and unuseful. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
no permission 2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 06:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, laks of informations (author, date, first publication). Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Screenshot, wrong license. Harry Canyon (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
small resolutions, dubious source
2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 06:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
no permission
- File:15-benesov.jpeg
- File:12-uhrineves.jpg
- File:14-benesov.jpeg
- File:13-uhrineves.jpg
- File:01-jihlava.jpg
- File:10-otrokovice.jpg
- File:03-jihlava.jpg
2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 06:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios http://www.earch.cz/cs/stavitelstvi/v-cr-vznikaji-moderni-modularni-skoly-skolky. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
The image metadata contains a copyright notice, "Do Not Use Without Permission" John of Reading (talk) 08:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: then we need a permission :. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it has been taken from somewhere. No proof that the uploader is the author nor that he has the rights. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 08:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Univespiano (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Univespiano (serial copyright violator/file cropper/video screenshooter). All files uploaded in a row on 15.10.2014. File:Num usa 2.jpg (collage) contains copyrighted text and at least 1 copyrighted file, already tagged as copyvio via File:Fogue.jpg. 2 files are project scope-screenshots from ptwiki. File:Arce-pag07-fotoSão-João-Imagem.jpg (painting/drawing) = grabbed from internet = (example) http://saojosejaguapita.com.br/paroquia/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Sao-Joao-Batista-Pequeno.jpg. It may be in public domain by other reasons but relevant info must be provided.
- File:Arce-pag07-fotoSão-João-Imagem.jpg
- File:Sao Jo.jpg
- File:Num usa 2.jpg
- File:Numusa.jpg
- File:Apagada.jpg
- File:Fotocapa.jpg
- File:Imafoto.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by User:Ralvesgoncalves
[edit]Suspected flickrwashing by User:Ralvesgoncalves of 3 images, all uploaded to flickr today (February 16) to same account:
- File:Shirley Varnagy.jpg taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi
- File:Norkys Batista.jpg taken with Canon EOS 5D Mark III
- File:Carina Zampini.jpg taken with Canon EOS 7D
Tm (talk) 02:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added File:Cristina Pérez.jpg, in the same conditions as the images above, but taken with Canon EOS DIGITAL REBEL XSi, uploaded after the opening of this DR. Tm (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, 3 different cameras used, no cropped image can be found on the web [4]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There is no freedom of panorama in France. This monument is built after WWII and copyrighted. Who is sculptor and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, sculptor is Charles Barberis died in 1982. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tomcech007 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused files, private images
- File:Photo on 12-16-15 at 10.02 AM.jpg
- File:Photo on 9-6-15 at 9.19 PM -2.jpg
- File:4-up on 1-30-16 at 3.43 PM -4.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely that all images are own work. 4ing (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely that all images are own work. 4ing (talk) 22:00, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I am the original uploader of this image, and today I received a request from the TED conference organizing committee to delete due to copyright violation Biscottalia (talk) 22:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Biscottalia, were you actually the photographer of this image, as you claimed in the file description? If that is correct, then there can be no copyright violation here and we should keep the image because it is in use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Jameslwoodward), yes, I work as a professional photographer and was under contract for the event. I mistakenly interpreted the contract to allow use of some photos I shot for personal use, but I've been informed all the photos I took while at the event are for corporate use only and I've been asked to delete this. Biscottalia (talk)
Deleted: per nomination and reaction. --Basvb (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake in spelling the word "sky". I wrote "skay" . Otherwise, can you correct the spelling instead of me? ウィキ太郎 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- ファイルの名前を間違えてアップロードしてしまった場合は、Commons:ファイルの改名にしたがって、改名を依頼することが出来ます。削除依頼への提出は必要ありません。
- If you have uploaded file with misspelling, you can request rename, following Commons:File renaming. You don't need to submit deletion request. --Kkairri (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: file has been renamed, no need to delete. --Yasu (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of projet scope. Commons is not Flickr. Sismarinho (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: landscape photo: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope (Commons is not Flickr). Sismarinho (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
At moment the file is out of project scope, because hospital is not identified. No categories, inadequate description, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
spam, del. on DE Nolispanmo 10:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Toolwale). MER-C 11:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 13:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
out of scope Themightyquill (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a copy of en:File:A lipid micelle.png (which is itself a derivative work of File:Lipid bilayer and micelle.png, but without the proper licensing information). I'd like to delete this so that I can do a proper transfer from en.wp. Mackensen (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: ok. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Chabukiani New York Magasine 2.JPG
The license is obviously very wrong. The photos are probably copyrighted. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work. Depicted person was born in 1910 and most photos about him are still copyrighted. There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia. Taivo (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work. There is no freedom of panorama in Georgia. OTRS-permission from drape artist is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The photo is called a selfie – I doubt. OTRS-permission from real photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP#Slovenia: unfree relief on the wall. Eleassar (t/p) 10:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Camera metadata says "© Paula Goldman" John of Reading (talk) 11:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Not "own work". Also, map make it not electible for PD-textlogo IMHO. Regards Ganímedes (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Ad of a conference in 2013. Not "own work" Ganímedes (talk) 11:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Notary act of an Association of 1994. Out of Scope, IMHO. Regards. Ganímedes (talk) 11:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete this is not quite a duplicate of File:NZZ 19. 1. 1780 Titelseite (heller).jpg but just a brighter less readable version so is unlikely to ever be of use. Ww2censor (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
You are right. Please, delete.--Petermichaelgenner (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality, unlikely to be used, redundant to other photos in Category:Cosplay of Urusei Yatsura, taken from the back - likely without subject permission. Borders on stalking. Unencyclopedic, fails project scope. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not a own work by the uploader. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 12:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, spam, del on DE Nolispanmo 13:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
redirection not needed Doblecaña (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We don't deleted redirects. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative - no freedom of panorama for 2D works in the UK. Text likely under copyright. Kelly (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Extremely low quality 'sketch' I did some years ago to provide a stop-gap image for the Joker wikipedia page since at that time they did not have one without copyright issues. I'm pleased to say it has been replaced for a long time now so this bad quality image is unused. As the creator and uploader I suggest that it now serves no purpose and be deleted. Prosthetic Head (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:DW of a stock image from Shutterstock, copyrighted and not under a free license[5]. Tineye verifies the existence of this image on Shutterstock as of at least March of 2013, prior to it's upload here. Revent (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Also:
out of scope Jarekt (talk) 14:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. See http://digital-photography-school.com/bioluminescence-under-the-stars/ as well as other places on the net from around that time (years before the 'own work' upload here). Image appears to belong to Phil Hart, an Australian amateur astronomer and photographer. Revent (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Marked "own work"; likely copyvio. djr13 (talk) 14:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment At http://homepage.usask.ca/~dtr467/400/ in 2011, years before upload here. Revent (talk) 14:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Map in the background is not the uploader's own work but taken from an online GIS. Couldn't find any sign of a free license at the source (but I don't speak Polish so I might have missed something). El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is the subject's Facebook profile image, at [6], and is at much higher resolution there. This image is unlikely to be the uploader's own work. Revent (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be own or free Bilderling (talk) 14:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SalasGerardo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Johnnie Barnes (3).jpg
- File:Johnnie Barnes (4) (1).jpg
- File:Johnnie Barnes (8).jpg
- File:Barnes2.jpg
- File:Johnnie Barner.jpg
- File:Campa Explo Marzo.jpg
- File:Johnnie Barnes.jpg
- File:Rev. Johnnie Barnes.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Igreja Fonte Missionária do Brasil (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Pastores das Igrejas.jpg
- File:Pr. Livino Torres.jpg
- File:Pra. Cheila Félix Ribeiro.jpg
- File:Pr. José Carlos (Presidente Fundador).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Nominating also, per small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, further uploads:
All files may be also out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. User blocked at ptwiki. Gunnex (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Given source[7] specifies a noncommercial license for site content. Kelly (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fretes 152 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Photos of music group of questionable notability. Not used.
- File:En Vivo en Asbury Live Club (Flores).JPG
- File:Federico González.jpg
- File:Agustín Díaz.jpg
- File:Fretes Gonzalo.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.cableondasports.com/site/assets/files/32890/sanfrasatelital.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement of company of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Britta Kremke (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think painter identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Atelieransichtenexzerpt.pdf
- File:Katalog Kühlungsborn.pdf
- File:CarloCazalsAtelier2014.JPG
- File:CarloCazals2014 2.JPG
- File:CarloCazals2014.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC) The Files * File:Katalog Kühlungsborn.pdf
- File:CarloCazalsAtelier2014.JPG
- File:CarloCazals2014 2.JPG
- File:CarloCazals2014.JPG are my own copyright.I am the manager of the oevre of Carlo Cazals, I manage the database with all his paintings and graphics and I take the photos. So I guess, I am the legal copyright holder. Britta Kremke
Deleted: per nomination. Please contact the OTRS-team to get this files restored. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sarosh Aanisan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Album covers and promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Entre Papeis, Canetas E Uma Alma Poética, por Wolof Griot.jpg
- File:December Winds por Nadine Rodgers.jpg
- File:Sarosh Aanisan 01.JPG
- File:00. Capa Traseira.jpg
- File:00. Todos Os Sonhos 2010.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (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) 15:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The uploader took the image from http://excaliburautomobile.pagesperso-orange.fr/exca6.htm Minihaa (talk) 16:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Ausschnitt gespiegelt von hier kopiert, wurde aus dem gleichen Grund schon einmal gelöscht Alnilam (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Explanation/Request has been sent to Wikimedia Commons. Kolkothar (talk) 18:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Okay, in that case the OTRS-team will undelete the file in duo course. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zCUG5eicBC4/hqdefault.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-vSgF2YiHsmw/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAADYs/3X1JDmD5Mv0/photo.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but I feel, that the photo is out of project scope due to lack of educational value. Taivo (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Question: In the scope of Wiki Loves Africa 2015? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We don't have a lot of photographs of Tanzania and this photograph shows how the locals dress. As a bonus the persons are not recognisable. Could be used in an article about culture in Tanzania. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from paintings. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Non-free image from Instagram. Please also add the below images for deletion:
- File:Il Divo 2014 -- Evening.png
- File:Marín, Carlos-Amor&Pasión.jpg
- File:Urs Bühler-Amor&Pasión.jpg
- File:SébastienIzambard-Amor&Pasión.jpg
- File:DavidMiller-Amor&Pasión.jpg
The user should be blocked for this violation. IndianBio (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-BhLSZi2vjhE/AAAAAAAAAAI/AAAAAAAAAAA/BXKi2fQ_JiA/photo.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. @ dear user, this picture was taken by the subject person's father. The uploader's grandfather. It is a personal property--Egovision hun (talk) 16:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.tripuraindia.com/tripura/Handler.ashx?Size=L&PhotoID=2873. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kristiqn Kref (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Promo photo. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by BLACK BOMB A MANAGEMENT (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The photographer of Alaska Auto Sports is Jeff Floyd. We have a blanket image release on file for all of Jeff Floyd's photos and Alaska Auto Sports' photos. He takes them for our public relations purposes here at the racetrack, and I am the public relations manager.
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://bemagazine.me/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/IMG_2202.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The following contested pieces are my own work:
Image uploaded for "Artist Natalia in New York City" is a crop of the original (uploaded to Flickr here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/140237529@N02/25070355515/in/dateposted-public/) EXIF available on Flickr link. Corrected date of photo taken: February 7, 2016.
"Natalia Anciso and Sandra Cisneros" is also a crop of an original picture taken from my Smartphone a while back. Original uploaded to Flickr with EXIF: https://www.flickr.com/photos/140237529@N02/25080166815/in/dateposted-public/
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Rey Rey Rodriguez from IMDB.jpg
- File:"Moments before the Show" a Rey Rey Rodriguez portrait.jpg
- File:BlackSuitForInternet copy.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like.http://holatelcel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Jaguar.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No FoP in South Korea. Moonian (talk) 16:08, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unclear copyright cases
- File:Arbeid 2.jpg
- File:Stakingijm.jpeg
- File:Jaapk.jpeg
- File:Boek.jpg
- File:Vaas.jpg
- File:Logger0354.jpg
- File:Logger02.JPEG
- File:Strauch.JPEG
2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 16:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status. The uploader is not the copyright owner, so that the given licences are invalid.
- File:Snik fishingship.pdf
- File:Bouwe4 009.tif
- File:Bouweteelt 028.tif
- File:Bouweteelt 074.tif
- File:Hoop5.tif
- File:Hoop1.tif
- File:Bouweteelt 096.tif
- File:Bouwe1 004.tif
- File:Bouwe3 3530.tif
- File:Bouwe1 003.tif
- File:Stoomlogger Vl.tif
- File:Van der Toorn237 - Zeilrogger Corma van C. Roeleveld.jpg
- File:Blazen opblazen.tif
- File:Stoomtrawler.jpg
- File:Zeevisserij.jpg
- File:Vistuig Traap.jpg
- File:Verlofpas Nederlandse Opbouwdienst.jpg
- File:Afb.WO II 06 Identiteitskaart van de Opbouwdienst.jpg
- File:OVB.jpeg
- File:Stikke.jpeg
Ras67 (talk) 22:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely authorship claims given the apparent age of the photos and the uploader's history. Some may be old enough that it's plausible they're in the public domain, but truthful source, authorship and publication details are required to determine that.
- File:34 743 Jan van der Toorn en Hoogendijk warzawa april 1934.jpg
- File:14 542 GDY 132 Soms zit het mee.jpg
- File:32 741 Pools bezoek aan nettenboetsters waaronder één poolse (l).jpg
- File:03 801. Poolse deputatie in Nederland.jpg
- File:38 802 Schipper Kleijn(r.o.) met mede-schippers.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 07:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Prenter2 is born in 1933, so it would be possible that he made some pictures, but the first one "34 743 Jan van der Toorn en Hoogendijk warzawa april 1934.jpg" already gives the year 1934, so that is not possible. I think Prenter2 owns this pictures and/or the negatives, but he is not the photographer, that is for sure. So he has to prove this is in public domain. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:27, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
"own works" (different watermarks)
2003:45:5C6F:1201:D59:2590:29F5:D921 16:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:SELFIE. Sismarinho (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
hkbmgbkujkyh 84.85.59.212 17:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense DR. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yamilbasso (talk · contribs)
[edit]Looks like promo-material for the uploader's own band. Anything we'd like to keep, or just delete it all per "Commons is not Myspace"?
- File:Derecho-de-Piso Foto.jpg
- File:Tapa del primer disco.jpg
- File:Derecho de Piso.JPG
- File:Derecho-de-Piso.jpg
El Grafo (talk) 18:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect structure: sodium is not covalently bound. Leyo 23:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Kept: In use Natuur12 (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
There should not be a hydrogen atom bridging the two phenyl rings. Image is no longer in use. Ed (Edgar181) 19:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete incorrect indeed. DMacks (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as above. --Leyo 21:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 14:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Image is not free -- it has been Flickr washed. MShabazz (talk) 11:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment can you clarify ? Unfitlouie (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: 1960s movie poster scan. Doubtful that Flickr user is copyright holder. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect license, The Amazing Adventure (U.S. title for The Amazing Quest of Ernest Bliss) is a British film and thus the listed license based on U.S. copyright law is not valid. Deanlaw (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status in country of origin. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Image uploaded for a spam page on English Wikipedia. Insufficiently attributed montage collage. Promotional, out of scope. BethNaught (talk) 17:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Insufficiently attributed collage. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as no permission (No permission since). I think, that this is simple logo, so permission is not needed, but unused logos of non-notable companies are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: non-notable company. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a copyrighted photo belonging to Nick Miners http://nickminers.com/tag/contortionist/ Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright infringement https://www.flickr.com/photos/andyworthington/8192310439 Theroadislong (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
es gibt jetzt bessere Bilder Thomas021071 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Die von Thomas021071 erwähnten "besseren Bilder" sind in der Fotowerkstatt aus dem zur Diskussion stehenden Bild durch mehrfache Bearbeitung hervorgegangen. Aus grundsätzlichen Erwägungen ist es üblich, die Originalfotos in solchen Fällen zu behalten, und statt der Löschung einen Hinweis auf das aufbereitete Foto zu setzen. Letzters habe ich eben erledigt. Gruß, --Lämpel Disk. 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Das ist doch nur ein Foto von mir, das nutzt doch keiner. Ich habe nicht die Absicht bei anderen eine Löschung zu beantragen. mfg --Thomas021071 (talk) 15:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Photo is basis for derivative works. We should not delete this to keep the source chain intact. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 17:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal image El Grafo (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
not in use, tineye search gives more than 1000 results, not own work as mentioned in template Kareyac (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
not in use, not own work, low resolution copy of File:Brauron - Marble Slab with a Lion.jpg Kareyac (talk) 20:03, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 20:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as there is no EXIF section, as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, despite no EXIF (some of my files too have no EXIF), I don't find previous publications. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Fake logo of an unexisting company, totally useless for the project L736E (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Advertising and apparent copyright violation. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination http://www.rutavalledeelqui.cl/alojamiento-en-pisco-elqui/. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Advertising and apparent copyright violation. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination http://www.rutavalledeelqui.cl/alojamiento-en-pisco-elqui/. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Magazine cover, most probably unfree. Tito Dutta (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep Not good enough reason. It is not a magazine cover, but a photograph of a poster for the magazine. No reason to doubt uploader's claims. It is also INUSE on ENWP to illustrate the same magazine. Unfitlouie (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Flying into Cloud on Ascent from Detroit Wayne County Metropolitan Airport, Over Sumpter Township, Michigan (14023841428).jpg
[edit]Uploader request - too much cloud and wing - doesn't meet COM:EDUSE INeverCry 22:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploader request - fuzzy shadow of plane - no COM:EDUSE value INeverCry 22:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope due to quality: very blurry. Taivo (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Possible- if not probable- copyright violation. Professionally-shot looking image at typical web resolution (warning sign), single-upload user with little background info (another warning sign), use on report with claimed date of 2012 found here, uploaded here in 2011 apparently, widespread use, insufficient evidence that uploader has rights for this. Ubcule (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, obvious copyvio. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out-of-scope and/or unused personal image of non-notable person (166 hits for exact name). Ubcule (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Doudtfull to be own work, given the copyvio history of the uploader, the small size and the cost of the camera (or the lens) (and it is the position of a professional photographer). C messier (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Because I am new in wikipedia and try to improve, please explain me what kind of photos we have to upload for a person. As i realized can not be from photographer. What if you find the photo on internet but its not from photographer like the last one..?
The photo needs to freely license, even if it was created by a professional photographer. Photos that you find in the web unless noted otherwise, ares copyrighted and not permitted here. --C messier (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the uplader found it on the web https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cmkostas&diff=188028686&oldid=187983335. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Existe una mejor versión de éste archivo.
Deleted: by User:Billinghurst. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
besseres Bild verfügbar: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teutonia_Gie%C3%9Fen_%28Doeberl%29.jpg Mehlauge (talk) 11:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Blurry image, not in use. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Ich bitte um Löschung, damit eine neue, vervollständigte Version hochgeladen werden kann. Ninninana (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- File bitte nicht löschen. Diese Version ist korrekt. Sorry für das Missverständnis. --Ninninana 11:27, 2 Oktober 2012 (UTC)
Zeichnung wird ersetzt durch Foto. Ninninana (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Quality illustration of fire damage to the painting. No reason to delete, even if there is a photograph available. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Queryzo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: see google images, may be no own work Wdwd (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No higher resolution or newer version of this image found via image search. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Queryzo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: see google images, may be no own work Wdwd (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No higher resolution or newer version of this image found via image search. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unfree per Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-NJGov. January (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This is a fictional flag that should not be used. Zoupan (talk) 02:05, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: In use. Unofficial bot not fictional flag froma specific group of inmigrants at Uruguay. --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you have any source on this? I can't find any unofficial flag of this community. The flag is obviously based on a commons-uploaded element (File:Verginasun.png), which only reinforces that it is fictional. None of its use on WP is directly related to this immigrant community, only claiming to be the community flag. Unsourced, failed verifiability.--Zoupan (talk) 02:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
יש חותמת בצד שמאל וחותמת רקע, זה נראה הורדה מאתר ציון הלוי (talk) 22:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, there was a watermark showing the true source of the file. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This deletion request is for all files placed in Category:AIDS Poster from Wellcome Images (check needed). This is a request made after recent correspondence with the Wellcome Library on 15th February confirming that they have been obliged to change the copyright restrictions on the Library source website (given as the 'gallery' links on the image text pages) from CC-BY to CC-BY-NC-ND. The original releases should be considered to be erroneous.
These c.2,730 scans of posters by the Wellcome Library were boldly released in 2014 on a CC-BY license as part of a project to release 100,000 medical history related images to Commons. The vast majority of the images were scans of works well over 70 (or 95) years old, and are correctly considered on Commons to be public domain. At that time there was an assessment of risk of the collections released, and it remains a low risk that organizations would want to apply a claim of copyright to the AIDS educational posters. Since then the library has reassessed copyright and determined cases where they could gain a positive copyright release, examined again the cases of orphan works (such as where the originating organizations have since closed and there is no legally recognisable point of contact) and cases where there have been requests to restrict copyright by the donating organization. As a result we must consider that there is reasonable doubt over the AIDS posters from the 1980s onwards where the Wellcome Library have been unable to gain a release from the copyright holder for a CC-BY license.
Closing admin please note I recommend this deletion request stays open for at least 2 weeks rather than the conventional 7 days. There are several benefits for giving the Wikimedia community additional time to review the collection:
- It may be possible to approach some of the originating organizations for a confirmation of copyright, this is in hand for UNESCO related posters.
- It may be possible to retain a number of the posters as copyright ineligible or derived works of public domain material, in those circumstances the Wellcome Library may want to reconsider the license on their catalogue.
- Some images which are in use on various language Wikipedias may be considered unique for illustration, and a local copy of the image might be retained on fair use grounds rather than deleting on all projects as well as on Commons.
- The images have been on Commons for over 18 months, so there is no special risk associated with granting a limited amount of extra time for appropriate discussion and review to assess the nomination against the precautionary principle we apply on Commons where special judgement is required for copyright.
- There are about 40 images marked for deletion that I shall be withdrawing from this request, after receiving confirmation from the Wellcome Library, as they have a suitable release recorded.
The total number of files to be deleted will change during the life of this DR, based on reviews of relevant copyright. Similarly the Wellcome Library are interested in seeing images undeleted for images where a copyright holder is later able to come forward with a release statement they can apply. The later undeletions can be handled using the normal undeletion process.
Thanks
Fæ (talk) 16:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Full poster list
[edit]Extended content
|
|---|
|
Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/02/16/AIDS poster list |
Discussion
[edit]- Keep all of them: Their change of license there has nothing to do with the copy here in Commons, just like those photos from Flickr. See {{Flickr-change-of-license}} for details (especially the documentation part). --Moonian (talk) 04:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The carefully chosen word in the nomination was 'erroneous', this is not a change of license by a copyright holder, but a correction by a third party. These images were not released by the copyright holder on the original license, and when we then later have doubts about that release because a copyright holder is identified, or there is a higher risk that originally thought that a free release is valid, then we often delete images uploaded from sources like Flickr. This is especially true for 'No copyright known' releases, which Flickr and Commons accepts but with the knowledge that there is a risk that they may be withdrawn if copyright is then later determined. As the uploader I recommend deletion as with the doubt raised these fail to meet COM:PRP.
- We are grateful that Wellcome Images made the bold decision to release a huge collection of images, and a correction to less than 3% of that donation is something we should be able to neatly sort out as housekeeping. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean that these images are NOT {{Cc-by}} in the first place but just an assumption? And are they {{Cc-by-nc-nd}} from the very beginning?? --Moonian (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yes the original release is based on an assessment by the curator as historic media has not always been released to the archives with a formal release by the copyright holder. Similarly the CC-BY-NC-ND is also the result of a later assessment, but where the conclusion was to reduce risks associated with orphaned works and donated modern archive material where the copyright release is not as clear as we would like to see. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do you mean that these images are NOT {{Cc-by}} in the first place but just an assumption? And are they {{Cc-by-nc-nd}} from the very beginning?? --Moonian (talk) 05:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- We are grateful that Wellcome Images made the bold decision to release a huge collection of images, and a correction to less than 3% of that donation is something we should be able to neatly sort out as housekeeping. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all affected images. The CC-BY release was never valid. CC-BY-ND is not allowed on Commons. ViperSnake151 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all that are copyright ineligible (such as PD-text), Delete complex ones. --★ Poké95 11:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Images thought to be copyright ineligible
[edit]
The above gallery of posters have been marked with {{PD-textlogo}} or similar. Refer to search. --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: I gathered these which seem to be {{PD-text}}, too, there may be overlap:
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Tuvalkin's images presented as gallery instead of file list
|
|---|
|
|
- Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The images shown as images above -- they all appear to be ineligible for copyright.
- Delete All of the files in the {{Collapse}} list linked above Tuavlkin's comment. In using {{PD-text}} we need to remember that a single complete sentence is all that is required for a copyright in the USA and all of those I looked at would have a US copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of the ones 13 images shown above, delete the following:
- A barcode with the label 'Dia Mundial del SIDA Wellcome L0054025.jpg
- "AIDS Prevention; everyone's business" Wellcome L0053209.jpg
- "Aujourd'hui, demain, après demain ... après" Wellcome L0053157.jpg
- A block of text with the heading "L'image précède la mot" Wellcome L0053153.jpg
- Keep the rest. In other words, only keep the posters with only one sentence of text. Strong keep the "Silence = Death" poster. Knowing the kind of things we allow for Text-logo, I do not see this poster as copyrightable. Maplestrip (talk) 18:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is difficult to form a decision of all the "copyright ineligible" images. I'd say File:'Stop AIDS' poster campaign Wellcome L0053829.jpg and File:Message from AIDS Fonds Wellcome L0052750.jpg should be kept, for example, but most of the others should be deleted if the discussion above indeed falls through. There are too many to form an opinion on all of them. Could we at least set some ground rules? For example: every poster listed here that contains two proper sentences or more fails the PD-text criteria. It would be a lot easier to deal with the outliers if we can get the obvious ones out... Maplestrip (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I suggest that we avoid arbitrary ground rules. Of the images which may be copyright ineligible, there are only about 15 to 40 that would need detailed review. If this needs a subtle discussion, then that small collection (compared to a 2,700 total) could be kept on for an extended period after the less controversial posters have been removed. There may well be cases where posters consist of either repeated phrases, or even collections of quotes, and to arbitrarily delete them because they are literally more than one sentence would be a decision that is not driven by a rationale pinned logically on copyright considerations or existing Wikimedia Commons case books.
- Keep in mind that these are public education posters, not iconic strap-lines for block buster films or major retail companies. Common phrases and even more complex sex advice do not have a track record of copyright cases to stop them being reproduced. --Fæ (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is difficult to form a decision of all the "copyright ineligible" images. I'd say File:'Stop AIDS' poster campaign Wellcome L0053829.jpg and File:Message from AIDS Fonds Wellcome L0052750.jpg should be kept, for example, but most of the others should be deleted if the discussion above indeed falls through. There are too many to form an opinion on all of them. Could we at least set some ground rules? For example: every poster listed here that contains two proper sentences or more fails the PD-text criteria. It would be a lot easier to deal with the outliers if we can get the obvious ones out... Maplestrip (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- keep only posters with only one sentence of text--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all except the ones highlighted by Tuvalkin and others (but have an extended discussion about them). FredWalsh (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Note for closing admin / proposed close date: As there have been a few activities in the background which entail off-wiki discussion, including an email this week from the Wellcome about the copyright of a list of the images they were double checking (not good news unfortunately), and that the copyright UNESCO related posters were being discussed within that organization, plus a technical matter that might be resolved next week, I propose that this DR remains open until Friday 12 March and be considered for closure soon afterwards, unless a specific request for more time for sub-sets of posters can be justified. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep All posters presented by Tuvalkin and Fae. Simple text and color is not by default copyrightable art, but instead, it may or may not be copyrightable. These posters are a font choice and a presentation of data. They might include variations of commonly repeated slogans. Jameslwoodward is correct that a single sentence may be copyrighted, but it can even happen that more than a sentence might not be copyrighted if it is technical wordsmithing to present a fact in a straightfoward way. These are technical presentations of facts. In Category:Signs we have lots of multi-sentence publications which are technically produced signs and not asserted to be creative art. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- To our ineligible list, I propose adding File:AIDS prevention advert by ABIA Wellcome L0054768.jpg which is a (minor) derived work of File:Creación de Adám.jpg by Michelangelo, 16th century. In addition File:AIDS poster by Benetton Wellcome L0053972.jpg which appears to meet our understanding of COM:DM. Plus some more likely ineligible examples of text only plus minor logo at de minimis levels in the gallery immediately below. --Fæ (talk) 12:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
-
Minor derivative of 16th century artwork.
-
Minor derivative of 16th century artwork. -
De minimis applies to this arrangement of tiny photographs and the 'font' created is copyright ineligible.
-
Non-text elements are de minimis and icon/logo simple shapes.
-
AIDS ribbon is conventionally treated as a logo, so this appears under our threshold.
-
American Red Cross poster (are they interested in copyrighting these?), text & simplistic representation of Africa in the background (itself used in other posters as a project logo) is unlikely to represent copyrightable elements.
-
Handwriting is ineligible, other small elements of graffito are de minimis.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- After discovering the following
6875 posters produced by the U.S. HHS and so public domain by default, I am convinced we need a wider review and double checking of copyright claims in the detail of these posters. The gallery below has had the CC-BY license replaced with {{PD-USGov-HHS-CDC}} and should be kept as public domain. --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev..jpg){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._Base._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev.jpg){kind=link}
_Williams.jpg){kind=link}
_활동_사진_SFS_7204.JPG){kind=link}
![71 File:IAAF World Youth Cali 2015" .jpg](#File:IAAF_World_Youth_Cali_2015"_.jpg){kind=link}
_02.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_058.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![[2]](http://www.agiasofia.com/epanastasis/tampakopoulos.jpg){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev..jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev..jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._Base._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Listed_ID_80-382-0200._Base._-_Pechersk_Raion,_Kiev.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Williams.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Williams.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Williams.jpg){kind=link}
_Williams.jpg){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7204.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7204.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7284.JPG){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7332.JPG){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7368.JPG){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_SFS_7204.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
![21:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/16#c-4ing-2016-02-16T21:59:00.000Z-File:IAAF_World_Youth_Cali_2015"_.jpg){kind=link}
![10:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/16#c-Taivo-2016-03-14T10:04:00.000Z-File:IAAF_World_Youth_Cali_2015"_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(1).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}
_met_mede-schippers.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_02.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_02.png){kind=link}
_02.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0053888.jpg){kind=link}
_Wellcome_L0053236.jpg){kind=link}
- This declaration File:Declaration of the universal rights for those with AIDS Wellcome L0053067.jpg appears public domain material, but I would like someone with experience of the background of this in France to have a view. --Fæ (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- The ARTIS exhibition posters below are a collection of greyscale thumbnails of other posters. I believe they fall within our understanding of de minimis and so can be exempt from this DR. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- De minimus suggestions: The fact that each individual image is too small to count for copyright is fine, but combining images to look like something is an artistic work to me. The over-all look of "File:AIDS poster by Benetton Wellcome L0053972.jpg" is complex and I could imagine a lot of thought went into it. Furthermore, "File:Exhibition of AIDS posters by ARTIS Wellcome L0052930.jpg" and its pair seem too detailed to count for de minimus. The images are the focus of the work and are displayed dead-center next to eachother. I can imagine these two files falling under fair use as a transformative work, but if the images used in them are copyrighted, I see no reason why they would fall under de minimus.
- Red Cross posters: from what I know of the organization, they are interested in copyright (or at least in protecting their trademark). We should assume that the organization may sue Wikimedia if we go to far with public domain due to simplicity. That being said, it's difficult to say if the images you brought up are or aren't copyrightable. I again support to keep all of these so that they can be discussed individually or as part of smaller groupings. Maplestrip (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reviewing the American Red Cross website, they are interested in ensuring that their trademark is used appropriately, but they are open to members of the public reusing their material for good purposes. This falls in line with the Wellcome's use of CC-BY-NC-ND as this ensures against "misusing" the trademark. It may be worth approaching the American Red Cross with an explanation that these historical posters (15+ years old) are of significant educational value and the NC-ND restrictions stop them being used on Wikipedia (
the problem is finding the right contact within the American Red Cross, as most of the website contracts given are unlikely to understand the IP rationale vs. trademark issueaddendum: found a contact, working on an email). - Just picking up on "sue Wikimedia", for these cases this is never going to happen. The archive images are already publicly released as CC-BY-NC-ND, and while we discuss these posters they are marked as being under review. No lawyer for the Red Cross would advise them to pursue damages for images already released as CC-BY-NC-ND just because I uploaded them to Commons as CC-BY; the claim would be thrown out as I uploaded them in good faith, taking every possible precaution to respect copyright, further the Wellcome made an original professional assessment with the aim to take every reasonable precaution to protect the interests of the copyright holder and the wishes of the body or individuals donating the posters to their archive. This deletion request is going the extra mile to respect the interests of copyright holders and balancing that assessment against our understanding of "significant doubt" and the other side of the coin for cases where it is a reasonable assessment that works are copyright ineligible. --Fæ (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Email request now sent to the American Red Cross, see User:Fæ/email/American Red Cross. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm aware that some of the 68 images mentioned were projects with more than one agency, and some are copyright ineligible, however if this release comes off, we can then examine the remaining issues in detail. --Fæ (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Reply received today, confirming that they will investigate and get back to me. --Fæ (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Had a follow-up email today. Not good news unfortunately. Of the images they feel are within their domain (American Red Cross rather than other national initiatives) they do not have the resources to give an official response, expecting to be able to do this in June, however they did confirm that the most "free" license they are likely to allow will be a CC-BY-NC-ND one, which is exactly what the Wellcome Library are publishing the poster scans with. So this is a bit of a dead end, however at least the relevant Red Cross posters can be deleted at this time without worrying about potential undeletions in the near future. --Fæ (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
- Email request now sent to the American Red Cross, see User:Fæ/email/American Red Cross. --Fæ (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- Question Does anybody know if {{PD-KoreaGov}} point 2 might cover File:A cross-section of the HI-virus Wellcome L0054538.jpg? -revi? Storkk (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not a government work, I believe. Just a nonprofit organization. — regards, Revi 16:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! Storkk (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the call out, I like the care you are taking with deletions of these today. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not a government work, I believe. Just a nonprofit organization. — regards, Revi 16:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: some and kept some by various administrators. --Jcb (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)