Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/02/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Unlikely own work by uploader. -- Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Based on other contribs this is just another copyvio to me. --Herby talk thyme 11:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Freemedeals (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Freemedeals).
MER-C 07:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam - gone. --Herby talk thyme 13:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Uploader looklike a stalker or something, takes pictures from elsewhere and tags them as his with false info Sonty (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: hoax affair person exists but is a doctor, hoax articles portraying her as a super model falsely with fake copyvio pics like these have been removed from nl-wiki and accounts/socks have been blocked
Personal picture not related to any article and posted without any utility for the project L736E (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
No evidence of free license. The source link, http://content.bollywoodhungama.com/image/display%20image/585xdynamic%20jpeg/432729923.jpg, which was just added a few days ago, is blocked; however the same image is available from other places on the web, such as http://indianstunningactress.blogspot.com/2013/11/stunning-amrita-raos-hot-facebook.html and https://atishhomechowdhury.wordpress.com/tag/youth/ GRuban (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- as you said that the source http://content.bollywoodhungama.com/image/display%20image/585xdynamic%20jpeg/432729923.jpg is blocked so i added https://atishhomechowdhury.wordpress.com/tag/youth/ in source..is this still remove the pic. Hemalove (talk) 09:11, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation EquilLoL (talk) 10:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, I mass deleted all the user's uploads and will warn him/her. Taivo (talk) 15:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Wong's ear and mouth have been doctored such that it is not a true likeness of the subject and hence has no use or educational value. Uploader has only made one other edit on Commons and appears to be a political troll, judging by his/her edits on the Chinese Wikipedia. Also, judging from a reverse image search I suspect the uploader is not actually the author. Citobun (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, that's true. I'll block the troll. Taivo (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by B Enkay 45 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Bulk DR, for images that would probably merit individual speedies, New user, claiming 'own work' for what appear to be professional photographs, taken from various locations on the internet. A few might leak if I tried to find sources for them all to speedy them, but the group as a whole merits deletion on precautionary grounds.
- File:Mohammadu-buhari-official.jpg- Speedily deleted - http://abusidiqu.com/buhari-drops-military-title-release-post-may-29-official-portrait/ - Nigerian law copyrights government works. Revent (talk)
- File:Aso rock villa.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/1258400/abuja-city-beautiful-pictures since 2013 Revent (talk)
- File:Modern architecture.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/1258400/abuja-city-beautiful-pictures since 2013 Revent (talk)
- File:The interior of the mosque's dome.jpg - Speedily deleted - 2009 photo by Andrew Sinclair - [1] Revent (talk)
- File:Abuja National Mosque and its golden dome.jpg - Speedily deleted - 2013 press photo - Leadership Newspapers Group Limited (leadership.ng) Revent (talk)
- File:Central bank of Nigeria Head Quarters.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.234pulse.com/2013/03/abuja-has-to-be-one-of-the-most-beautiful-cities-in-the-world/ since 2013 Revent (talk)
- File:Millenium park.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/1258400/abuja-city-beautiful-pictures since 2013 Revent (talk)
- File:Abuja Velodrome.jpg - Speedily deleted - https://www.flickr.com/photos/eherrera/4881736998/ - Non-commercial license. Revent (talk)
- File:Lower Usuma Dam.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=881164 since 2009. Revent (talk)
- File:National Stadium from above.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/356775/abuja-city-videos-photos/9 since 2010 Revent (talk)
- File:Cenotaph of fallen soldier.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/722154/when-nigeria-like-city since 2011. Revent (talk)
- File:National assembly annex.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/539715/africas-most-beautiful-city-pics since 2010. Revent (talk)
- File:National assembly complex.jpg - Obvious copyvio. Property of ‘dayo Adedayo, with a clumsily removed watermark. Revent (talk)
- File:Federal civil service.jpg - Speedily deleted - http://www.nairaland.com/1258400/abuja-city-beautiful-pictures since May 2013 (date checked with Wayback Machine). Obvious copyvio. Revent (talk)
- File:Downtown abuja.jpg - Speedily deleted - Widely available on the internet, from sources at least 5 years prior to it's stated creation as 'own work'. Obvious copyvio - Revent (talk)
- File:IAIVjMR copy.jpg - Obvious copyvio. Property of ‘dayo Adedayo, with a clumsily removed watermark. Revent (talk)
Revent (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note after finishing this... most of the imageboard photos were clearly (by the hotlinked url or filename) taken from Flickr, and are photos since made private by their owners. These links are just gross evidence of the impossibility of these images being own works by the uploader. Revent (talk) 16:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Now moot, all speedied, no leakers. --Revent (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Promotional upload, and possible copyright violation. Uploader is an actor for this agency, doesn't have permission to license as own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo - Using VisualFileChange.
This file was initially tagged by Laura289 as Copyvio (Copyrighted) and the most recent rationale was: free use Amitie 10g (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Natuur12: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange.
Out of COM:SCOPE. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom Fma12 (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 19:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Category ({{SD|C1}} or {{SD|C2}}). --KurodaSho (talk) 14:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Empty cat, bad name (typo). --Achim (talk) 09:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
me confundi de subir Wilfredo vargas lapa (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jameslwoodward: Per Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Wilfredo vargas lapa
Unused personal photo, the uploader's last remaining contribution, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- also file:Dennybvarghese.jpg
Small unused personal photos, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 00:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 03:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, multiple watermarks and authors involved, most likely all either screenshotted or taken from Facebook. Uploaded since 2012 for pt:João Zaiden, a Brazilian mixed martial artist.
- File:João campeão do Sangue no Olho Fight 9.jpg
- File:João campeão do MAP Fight 2.jpg
- File:João vencendo O Gladiador Fight IV em araçatuba.jpg
- File:JoaoMap.jpg
- File:JoaoPa.jpg
- File:JoaoZaiden.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 10:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
COM:DW. It may be permanently on the aircraft, but this is from the USA, where there is no FoP for 2D art work. Yann (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, as I stated elsewhere. This could be considered a 'textbook example' of an image that is clearly of the 2D art itself, and not the 'utilitarian object' it's attached to. Revent (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pastelanded (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photographs of what looks like recent artworks by "Alan S. Tofighi". There is no indication that the artworks might be in the public domain. There is also no indication that the uploader had the right to publish them here. If User:Pastelanded is indeed the same person as "Alan S. Tofighi" or has gotten a permission from him, a permission has to be sent to our support team (see COM:OTRS for details.
El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by IngridC-Curtin (talk · contribs)
[edit]These are all sound recordings. Under Australian law, the performer or performers are owners of the copyrights to the works. The uploader is not the performer. Therefore these require a free license from the performers in order to keep them here.
- File:Darlene Penny, Johannah Whitehurst and Ella Yarren.ogg
- File:Darlene Penny Heads Shoulders Knees Toes Song in Noongar.ogg
- File:151015-ingo singing winji merriny copy.ogg
- File:151015-ingo singing winji merriny copy.wav
- File:Ingrid - Yowrl Koorliny Gnullar Kadadjiny.ogg
- File:Kaya Kim Scott.ogg
- File:Kay's Waney 2015 01.ogg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
File was uploaded by Osrius with claim of own image, but is (C) CHRIS BURKARD PHOTOGRAPHY 2010 with no permission on file Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
copyright holder wishes to take it down and replace with new updated photo Osrius (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The license is irrevocable. We rarely take delete images at the request of the subject and almost never at the request of third parties. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I (as uploader) request deletion. MB298 (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof of {{Anonymous work}}, {{PD-Turkey}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof of {{Anonymous work}}, {{PD-Turkey}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof of {{Anonymous work}}, {{PD-Turkey}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. There is no proof of {{Anonymous work}}, {{PD-Turkey}}. Takabeg (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A newer UN file, not suitable for {{PD-UN}}. It is not simple enough for {{PD-ineligible}}. JuTa 14:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 21:46, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Can this be undeleted and relicenced with {{PD-UN-doc}} — billinghurst sDrewth 05:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
This file has been undeleted via COM:UNDEL — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, probable professional portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
EXIF credits "@2015 Georgetown University", a legal representative of which should confirm the license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, likely studio portrait: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused and not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, possible video still: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MJProductions989 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no camera metadata, likely professional shots: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS.
Storkk (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, possible professional shot: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Small filesize, no camera metadata, possible video still: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal artwork/photo, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Out of scope. Likely additional copyright issues. Storkk (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Illegibly small size argues against uploader's assertion of {{Own work}}. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Promo photos and documents. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Le pavillon du Maroc à l'exposition universelle de Milan 2015.pdf
- File:Revue de presse record de visiteurs.pdf
- File:RDP -Conference de presse Pavillon Maroc.pdf
- File:Le pavillon du Maroc.jpeg
- File:« Un voyage de saveurs ».jpg
- File:Les jardins du pavillon du Maroc - Expo Milan 2015.jpg
- File:Scénographie du pavillon - La région de l'Atlas.jpg
- File:Scénographie du pavillon - L'Atlantique.jpg
- File:Scénographie du pavillon - La région du centre.jpg
- File:Scénographie du pavillon - La région de la méditerranée.jpg
- File:L'oliveraie du jardin du pavillon du Maroc à Expo Milan 2015.png
- File:Le pavillon du Maroc est sous forme d'une Kasbah.jpg
- File:Le pavillon du Maroc - Expo Milan 2015.jpg
- File:Le concept store du pavillon du Maroc.JPG
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by S judicial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical and official photos and logos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:صورة رئيس القضاء.jpg
- File:Abusin.jpg
- File:Untitled.jpg- شعار القضائية.jpg
- File:Qurashi.png
- File:Gallal.gif
- File:Alzaki.png
- File:Hajali.png
- File:Lutfi.png
- File:جلال على لطفي.jpg
- File:Mabrouk1243.png
- File:Fuad.png
- File:18Jan-1985 2 - Copy.jpg
- File:Dafaalla.png
- File:دفع الله الحاج يوسف.jpg
- File:Shebeka.png
- File:Khalafalla.png
- File:Othmantayeb.png
- File:Rayahalamin.png
- File:Awadalla.png
- File:القاضي محمد أحمد أبورنات.png
- File:Prof. Haider Ahmed Dafalla.JPG
- File:Awad.png
- File:Jozoli.png
- File:Khawad.png
- File:Abugsesa.png
- File:Alamin.png
- File:Othman.png
- File:Mufti judicaly.png
- File:Ahmedhashim.png
- File:Ishag.png
- File:Humaida.png
- File:Hashim.png
- File:شعار السلطة القضائية.jpg
- File:الشيخ حسن مدثر الحجاز.png
- File:القاضي الشيخ احمد.jpg
- File:الشيخ محمد نعمان الجارم.png
- File:الشيخ محمد أمين براعة.png
- File:الشيخ محمد هارون.png
- File:Mohamedshakir.png
- File:Sir C . C .G ummings.jpg
- File:SIR Sir Thomas Greed.jpg
- File:Sir j . Gorman.jpg
- File:SIR B H BELL.jpg
- File:Sir N DA.jpg
- File:SIR Nigel Daridson.jpg
- File:Sir Wasey Sterey.jpg
- File:Edgar Bonham-Carter.jpg
- File:مبني الحقانية(السلطة القضائية).jpg
- File:أحد ملوك السلطنة الزرقاء، 1821.jpg
- File:مبني الحقانية (السطة القضائية السودانية).JPG
- File:الادأرة الفنية.pdf
- File:السلطة القضائية.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Fake licenses: lot of historical pictures as "own"
- File:Г.В. Скопинцева-Селезнёва. Братск.jpg
- File:В.Л. Филютович. Кобрин, Польша.jpg
- File:Степан Чепик. Комсомольск-на-Амуре.jpg
- File:Софья Козелецкая. Кобрин, Польша.jpg
Bilderling (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Donmonther (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused, small sized, low-quality images of a non-notable male, several are duplicates of each other. Commons isn't social media, this sort of gallery would be fine on user's Facebook account, but here are out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:كرم ابو زنادة13.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة12.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة11.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة10.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة9.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة8.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة7.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة5.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة4.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة6.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة3.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة1.jpg
- File:كرم ابو زنادة.jpg
- File:Kram26.jpg
- File:Kram25.jpg
- File:Kram24.jpg
- File:Kram23.jpg
- File:Kram22.jpg
- File:Kram21.jpg
- File:Kram20.jpg
- File:Kram27.jpg
- File:Kram19.jpg
- File:Kram18.jpg
- File:Kram16.jpg
- File:Kram17.jpg
- File:Kram15.jpg
- File:Kram14.jpg
- File:Kram13.jpg
- File:Kram12.jpg
- File:Kram11.jpg
- File:Kram9.jpg
- File:Kram10.jpg
- File:Kram8.jpg
- File:Kram6.jpg
- File:Kram7.jpg
- File:Kram5.jpg
- File:Kram4.jpg
- File:Kram2.jpg
- File:Kram3.jpg
- File:Kram1.jpg
- File:Monther.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs. Metadata on only six images, once each camera but for the Nikon D3S which has two. All others have no metadata. Two seem to be copied from television, because of the overprinted banners, others were culled from websites (see collage).
- File:Wise edhub.jpg
- File:AL-Bairaq WISE 2015.jpg
- File:UNESCO Visits Al Bairaq.webm
- File:The Effect of Fear on Humans' Vital Signs (Al-Wakra Museum Group).webm --> taken from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN9j7K28ZTo&t=2m15s (2012, © by "AL-Bairaq")
- File:Center for Advanced Materials staff.jpg
- File:Students during "Science in sport" track.jpg
- File:I'm Discovering Materials Track.jpg
- File:The final event of Science in Sport.JPG
- File:The final Event ceremony.jpg --> per exif a copyrighted work by "MOHAMED SHERIF"
- File:The final event.png
- File:Science in sport.jpg
- File:Problem solving track.JPG
- File:I am Discovering Materials track.JPG
- File:Science in sport track.png
- File:Final Event.jpg
- File:I am a Researcher track.JPG
- File:Final Event IDM.jpg
- File:Bairaq.jpg
- File:AlBairaqStudentsCollection1.jpg
- File:AlBairaqStudents5.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Unused promotional content. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope.
- File:Tonyonroovet.jpg
- File:Shield 3Q 12.pdf
- File:Stevens 20Logo-300x81.png
- File:Roovet Adwords.jpg
- File:Roovet.png
- File:Roovet logo.png
—LX (talk, contribs) 20:05, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Four images of non-notable male are out of COM:SCOPE. These types of snapshots are fine for Facebook and other social media ... which Commons is not.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs, promotional uploads of product packaging. Image of corporate HQ is from company website, as are logos and other screenshots.
- File:Soi gao Viet nam.jpg
- File:Mien Phu Huong.png
- File:Udon-suki.jpg
- File:Bun Gio heo.png
- File:Mi Mikochi.png
- File:Mi ly MODERN.png
- File:Mi ly ENJOY.png
- File:Acecook vietnam.jpg
- File:Hao Hao 2.jpg
- File:Mi Hao Hao.jpg
- File:THONG-TIN-VE-CI.png
- File:Logo Acecook Việt Nam.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mariella Rü (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on this series of images copied from a pharmaceutical company (including their logo).
- File:Forschung.jpg
- File:Logo Sebapharma.png
- File:29 sms WOL 0150 deu 03.png
- File:29 sms WCO 0150 deu 03.png
- File:Creme.png
- File:ImagesM38CBXYX.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Spejathaya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional/self-promotional uploads, two photos of a man, the other images are logos of his various enterprises. Out of COM:SCOPE, this material is more suitable for Facebook or other social media.
- File:Alva's Virasat logo.jpg
- File:Alva's Nudisiri Logo.jpg
- File:Alva's Education Foundation(R.) Logo.png
- File:Alva's Education Foundation logo blue.jpg
- File:Dr M. Mohan Alva.jpg
- File:Dr. M Mohan Alva.tif
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
A fully promotional/self-promotional gallery of a YouTube page owner. Commons is not social media, these images would be fine on your Facebook account.
- File:TheRandomChannel Logo Image.png
- File:TheRandomChannel Background Image.png
- File:Gary Goza Holding Cross 01.jpg
- File:Gary Goza Holding Cross 03.jpg
- File:Gary Goza Holding Cross 02.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raumbildfreund (talk · contribs)
[edit]Highly unlikely that these four images are user's own work; more information would be needed to retain them.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Williaxwang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional/ self-promotional uploads with images copied from product catalogs and company websites (urls at bottom of images).
- File:Roman Tiles.jpg
- File:Stone coated metal roof tile.jpg
- File:Metal Roof Tile Factory.jpg
- File:Colorful Stone-Coated Metal Roofing.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Imarinsurance (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these obviously professional images were created by uploader, please read file names and look at single purpose to all these uploads as promotional.
- File:Commercial Property Insurance Quotes - imar.jpg
- File:Martial Arts Insurance in Melbourne and Across Australia.jpg
- File:Builders Insurance in Australia Get Quotes Online.jpg
- File:Tool Insurance for Tradesman in Australia from imar.jpg
- File:Marine Insurance in Australia from imar.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The logo is unused and I suspect, that it is fake. Out of project scope. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs & promotional uploads one page direct from a catalog the others copied from the internet.
- File:Club car, villager 6.jpg
- File:Villager 4.jpg
- File:ClubCar villager 4.jpg
- File:Club-Car-Utility-Ambulance-580x380.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company (no mention in en.wiki), out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Last time I looked works from the Hubble Telescope are not considered "own work"... proper source & author is needed for this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dj Alan Briats (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
Gunnex (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PokestarFan (talk · contribs)
[edit]If these are own work, as claimed, they are personal art of a non-notable artist and therefore out of scope. If they are someone else's work, then they are copyright violations. Either way, we cannot keep them.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PokestarFan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Seven blocks of color, not categorized. No educational purpose.
- File:RedBackground.png
- File:YellowBackground.png
- File:BlueBackground.png
- File:BlackBackground.png
- File:Light BlueBackground.png
- File:PinkBackground.png
- File:OrangeBackground.png
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all per nom. --★ Poké95 01:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:36, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PokestarFan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Worried about copyvio
PokestarFan (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by PokestarFan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Accidental Create
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 30.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 29.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 28.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 25.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 24.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 23.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 22.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 19.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 18.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 17.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 15.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 13.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 14.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 12.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 09.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 07.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 08.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 06.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 03.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 01.png
- File:Ewfwwtetewtret 02.png
PokestarFan (talk) 23:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- File:Adem Sözüer.jpg
- File:Hleb.jpg
- File:Ulug.jpg
- File:Nigora.jpg
- File:Oybek.jpg
- File:OvaN.jpg
- File:Ziyade 2014.jpg
- File:Ziyade.jpg
- File:Abduvali Rajabov (ello.uz).jpg
- File:1309538223 botir-qodirov.jpg
INeverCry 23:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - no educational value INeverCry 23:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
scope unclear Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Also the original version, File:Humanitarian aid OCPA-2005-10-28-090517.jpg.
This is a wonderful image, but unfortunately it violates our clear policy on images of identifiable people. The location is a non-public place and the child in the image cannot, as a legal matter, have given consent to have her image used on the Web and elsewhere. There is no evidence that her parents have done so. If this image were of a medical professional treating a child in a US hospital, there could be no question of keeping it without parental consent. A med-evac helicopter is not quite a hospital, but it is so close as to not matter.
Our official guideline on the subject is:
- "Because of the expectation of privacy, the consent of the subject should normally be sought before uploading any photograph featuring an identifiable individual that has been taken in a private place, whether or not the subject is named. Even in countries that have no law of privacy, there is a moral obligation on us not to upload photographs which infringe the subject's reasonable expectation of privacy." see Commons:Photographs_of_identifiable_people#The_right_of_privacy.
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Question, then, why this image has been not nominated years ago? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, come on. We have 30,000,000 images on Commons. My best guess is that at least 1% -- more than a quarter of a million images -- should be deleted for one reason or another. Perhaps the situation touches me because I see that it might be my grand-daughter exposed to the view of the world while in medical distress. Perhaps people ignored the problem because it was a child from far away. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose deletion for lack of clear policy Wikimedia policy is unclear on these cases. I have been collecting similar cases when someone says that a model release ought to have been used, but was not, and I would like to get external legal opinions on what the best practice should be. There is a legal organization in New York, the Fashion Law Institute, which is seeking comment from the Wikimedia community and support in the form of a Wikimedia Foundation grant in exchange for development of a Creative Commons licensed model release and guidance on when it is and is not helpful to use it. If anyone would comment on this grant request, especially with either support or criticism, do so on meta at "Development of a model release process for photos and video" either at the bottom of the grant request or on the talk page. Similar cases are on the talk page.
- The Wikimedia community has debated such cases for years. I think it would be useful to seek external opinions made specifically for the special needs of the Wikimedia community because I do not think this issue will be readily resolved without expert guidance on best practices. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Seems to me that the paragraph above is pretty clear -- the child has a reasonable expectation of privacy while being treated by a medical professional, therefore we can't keep it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep We're merely republishing something that's already been published on a US government website. Are you suggesting that the US government is violating US privacy-related law here? Or is there some exception in US privacy-related law permitting some or all US government agencies to perform actions that are violations when performed by other parties? I would disagree with your argument if this were an uploader-created work, but when it's something that's previously been published (in a place meant for public distribution, not some minor page or some Wikileaks-derived page) on a prominent US government website, it seems a bit exceptional to claim that we're infringing. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The humanitarian aide operation was not a "private place", a U.S. Army Sergeant giving a girl a drink of water while waiting to be transported is not treatment by a medical professional, and this photograph is not demeaning or deliberately intrusive. Military photographers are not paparazzi trying to photograph politicians eating messy bacon sandwiches to sell to tabloids, or Royal family members adjusting their underwear. As for "think of the children" emotive arguments, these are best avoided, it should come as no surprise that grubby leathery old men have the same right to respect as cute children, and our approach to implementing Photographs of identifiable people, related legal requirements or other project policies should be fair, equitable, consistent and logically applied. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![20 File:"Dale" - the Dall Sheep. (6230368453).jpg](#File:"Dale"_-_the_Dall_Sheep._(6230368453).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
wiki.jpg){kind=link}
![105 File:Copertina Libro "La prima stella".jpg](#File:Copertina_Libro_"La_prima_stella".jpg){kind=link}
![124 File:Logo da campanha "Dê Mais Que Esmola Dê Futuro".jpg](#File:Logo_da_campanha_"Dê_Mais_Que_Esmola_Dê_Futuro".jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(1973).png){kind=link}
![[1]](http://www.travelpod.com/travel-blog-entries/andrewsinclair/4/1242109200/tpod.html?pbrowser=/andrewsinclair/4/1242109200/filename/ceiling-of-the-national-mosque.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![10:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-Yann-2016-02-17T10:47:00.000Z-File:"Dale"_-_the_Dall_Sheep._(6230368453).jpg){kind=link}
![11:03, 24 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-Steinsplitter-2016-02-24T11:03:00.000Z-File:"Dale"_-_the_Dall_Sheep._(6230368453).jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
All of these and many more photos have the following characteristics-
- The photo description says that medical aid is being provided.
- Photo released by the US military
- Showing identifiable children
- In wartime conditions, perhaps in the wartime equivalent of a clinic setting
Are these similar to the above photo? We have hundreds or thousands of "humanitarian aid" photos. Unless the photo in this discussion is special in some way, then I think the discussion here applies to all such images, right?
I do not think the issue is clear. There must be at least dozens of people who uploaded such photos thinking that this sort of photography is appropriate.
This might be a question of whether consent was given, or the circumstances under which children can consent to photography. There should be more discussion about what makes a photograph inappropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nyttend and Blue Rasberry , do you actually believe that everything the US Army does is right? I am a strong supporter of our military, but I am not that naive. The Army has a strong interest in appearing to be the good guys and therefore publishes pictures of soldiers being good guys even though the images are intrusive. It's also notable that all of the images above are from far away -- none of the children shown are Americans or Europeans -- to some extent it smacks of 1950s, when National Geographic regularly published images of bare-breasted African women although a similar image of a European would have been deemed pornography.
- Also please remember that Other stuff exists is never a proper reason for keeping an image -- we should always do what is right, and not pay attention to things that have slipped past us. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Other stuff exists is not a Commons policy or guideline, please do not rely on it as a way of dismissing the views of others. Much of Commons' guideline and policy is based on case books, such as the gallery of examples above. Sets of related cases are key to establishing our interpretation of policy and the rationalization of new liminal cases. --Fæ (talk) 15:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Jameslwoodward US goverment policy does not set Wikipedia policy. Just because something is legal or has been done does not mean that it is good for Wikipedia. Wikipedia follows the law, but beyond that, it makes other rules for excluding things that are legal but not acceptable here. I will not say that because a country does something, then Commons should also.
- "Other stuff exists" is a fair argument, and when I show other stuff, it is not because I want to dismiss your argument. I confirm - you raise an excellent point. If there were broad discussion, I think that dozens or hundreds of Wikimedia contributors would agree with your perspective. If I could, I would press the issue to call for more intense conversation, because I would prefer a clear answer to ambiguity. If there is ambiguity, then I default to keeping images. Another reason to default to keeping these is that it has been a Commons practice for ~10+ years to accept pictures like these and because we have lots of them. I might support a proposal to "delete all such pictures" but I am not ready to choose individual pictures and say, "only delete this one, but let's not talk about the many others".
- Obviously the photograph is patronizing. Rich people people from some countries go to other countries to photograph other people in intimate situations, when that kind of photography would never be allowed in their own country. I care a lot about this. This may or may not be appropriate but I wish policy were clearer to help settle the matter. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have uploaded many photographs taken by the U.S. military of disasters and relief projects in the USA. These include American families (of all skin colours) receiving charity and support, such as medical aide and food, so I do not accept that there are no similar photographs "allowed in their own country". As a non-American I enjoy uploading from many sources, just because some sources like defence agencies or tourist boards for various countries may have a political bias, does not mean they are off limits. Our approach should be that we accept all educational sources without fear or favour, and this (eventually) provides a balance on Commons. Anyway, this is a tangent for the DR, so I suggest we park it. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Obviously the photograph is patronizing" is itself an obviously preposterous claim.--Elvey (talk) 23:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- You know what else is patronizing, Jim? It’s phrases like «our military». Please learn that this is an international project and your country’s military may not be your collegues’ who are reading you here. The correct form is something like «my country’s military». -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Besides anything else, it is way to late to protect anyone's privacy by deleting this from Commons now. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep giving a bottle of water doesn't looks like medical treatment to me, and that army sergeant has no visible signs of being a medic. BTW, is the file still published at http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=7207 ? --- [Tycho] talk 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The image is available from https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1728467/pakistan-earthquake-relief. The '.mil' site had its public interface taken down a year or so ago. It is not clear why it was never re-opened. --Fæ (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep this is a public image and there is no privacy issuues in drinking water in a bottle--Pierpao.lo (listening) 17:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as per Jim, this is maybe a public place but it's a place with an "expectation of privacy" and of more the photograph show a child. No matter if it's a beautiful photo or not and no matter if the photo have already been published. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: Thanks you for your analysis above, you point some conditions (wartime, humanitarian aspect...)... but may this change the right of privacy? I tend to disagree :
- in what a child lose his personal rights when the photo is taken by a US soldier? It's because to show the truth (or an aspect of the truth) is more important than the privacy rights? Or what? is it an exchange, we help him so we can forgot it's privacy rights!?! or maybe it reassures us to see this kind of pictures. The only good question IMO is in what exactly this image is different than over photos of childrens in hospitals, and for what reasons should we forgot the privacy rights of this child...because we could lose a very good photo maybe!?! that's not sufficient IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- And I don't see why a photo published by US army would be exempted about privacy rights, or perhaps did they sign a waiver of his rights to the child, or to his parents, before the cure? "we help you but only if you forgot your privacy right"?!? or it was implied maybe. Apartment for some of us it is. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has argued that a child would lose their "privacy rights", that we must keep this photo to "show the truth", or even that the U.S. Army has claimed special rights. This photograph would have no different legal status if it were taken by French volunteers working in a UNESCO funded programme. The fact is that the photograph subject is not receiving a medical procedure where one would presume an expectation of privacy, and the photograph was taken in at a well documented public event, namely arranging emergency transport for survivors of an earthquake in Pakistan. If there were an earthquake tomorrow in San Francisco, similar photographs of Americans being rescued by emergency international aide groups would be published. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer and Fæ: It is not clear to me that this is a well documented public event. This is an intimate exchange on a helicopter in the context of the child being vulnerable and deprived and having a health need met by someone providing aid. Commons hosts other humanitarian aid pictures like children being given soccer balls / footballs, and those seem less intimate to me. I am not sure how I feel about people being photographed for accessing or seeking to access health care.
- I am presenting both sides of the debate that I see but I do not feel that either of them is very clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The earthquake evacuation is the "public event" and though this photograph was onboard a helicopter, it appears at a moment when everyone was boarding rather than in flight. As for "intimate exchange" and "having a health need", I do not see that in the description or the image itself up for deletion, so long as having a drink of water is not classed as a medical need. This was a photograph of refugees from an earthquake danger zone being airlifted to a safer city, presumably children were a priority. Other photographs from this series do show people with injuries resulting from the earthquake, which may be more relevant for these types of privacy concern and also have high value in terms of our project scope. As an uploader of many medical images, including images of people from the archives of different cancer charities, the idea that we might retrospectively lose valuable archive material due to overly hypothetical interpretations of what might be an 'expectation of privacy' is seriously worrying. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Nobody has argued that a child would lose their "privacy rights", that we must keep this photo to "show the truth", or even that the U.S. Army has claimed special rights. This photograph would have no different legal status if it were taken by French volunteers working in a UNESCO funded programme. The fact is that the photograph subject is not receiving a medical procedure where one would presume an expectation of privacy, and the photograph was taken in at a well documented public event, namely arranging emergency transport for survivors of an earthquake in Pakistan. If there were an earthquake tomorrow in San Francisco, similar photographs of Americans being rescued by emergency international aide groups would be published. --Fæ (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep IMHO a CH-47 Chinook helicopter is a public was acquired by a public institution (U.S. Army), Drinking water is a normal activity.If you're thirsty you drink water in public places without any problem, so there are drinkers machine. Beyond any subjective interpretation of this photo. --The Photographer (talk) 13:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- In Sweden, most hospitals are owned by public institutions, so are Swedish hospitals automatically public places? Or prisons, for that matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is of course, yes and no. A photograph of the Prime Minister talking to a hospital patient during an official visit where the press are taking photographs, can be presumed to have implied consent, however the Prime Minister in a personal visit in hospital of a dying friend would need to have evidence of consent. What Commons really needs here is a better set of case studies, legal reference cases, and detailed community agreed guidelines so that when photographs of people in places that may or may not be private (restaurants, train carriages, hotel lobbies, hospitals, emergency scenes, schools, nudist beaches, outside nightclubs, inside nightclubs, libraries, gay pride parades...) that we can refer against a community accepted case book of what does or does not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". This image is a good candidate to be part of our case book.
- As a corollary, we would have to be very clear about how to handle past archive images, such as historic public domain archives from 10, 20 or 70 years ago that could be interpreted in modern eyes as being intrusive for the subject and where we are highly unlikely to get anything in writing about subject consent. --Fæ (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- In Sweden, most hospitals are owned by public institutions, so are Swedish hospitals automatically public places? Or prisons, for that matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- An helicopter even owned by a public institution/army, here by the US army, is a place where you can have expectation of privacy specially if you're a civil, why not? Also what law apply here for this Pakistanese child on the Pakistanese territory? the Pakistanese law? or the US one? And yes to take and publish (with commercial purpose or not) photos of children "only" drinking water may be prohibed. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:41, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Copyright is less restrictive in Pakistan than the USA, see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory#Pakistan. There is no case law I have seen quoted by anybody that would lead us to suspect that an "expectation of privacy" is more restrictive in Pakistan, certainly there is nothing to indicate that photographs of people drinking water can only be published with a legal record of consent. I welcome someone pointing to verifiable legal cases that would justify us having doubt, rather than relying on rhetoric and moral panic. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Also the fact that similar photographs of Americans being rescued by emergency international aide groups would be published in a similar American case does not make this legal. There will also inevitably looting... it's not because "it will happen" that we must do it...A lot of publication in the web or magazines or in the TV are illegal or at the limit of the legality, that's not a reason to do the same... of more regarding the "think to the children" argument I have to say the "beautiful rescued children image" is here more in favor to have a consensus to keep. As it is you Fae who suggested to Jim this DR, if I missed nothing, it is indeed a well chosen image for a debate Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- We all agree, US army have no power to change privacy rights so we can forgot the image is taken or not by army because that will change nothing to the privacy right of the children
- The US army helicopter is a public place, well ok
- The child can not have expectation of privacy because she is "just drinking", ok again
- so we don't need consent by children legal guardians of all image of children drinking water in a public place to the extend of course where they are free licensed? what is the difference please? what is the legal law or policy that say privacy rights are lost after a disaster? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- For crying out loud, Christian Ferrer, READ COM:IDENT! Because AGAIN: public place and private place are legal terms with nonstandard meanings in this context.--Elvey (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- so we don't need consent by children legal guardians of all image of children drinking water in a public place to the extend of course where they are free licensed? what is the difference please? what is the legal law or policy that say privacy rights are lost after a disaster? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per Fæ & Nyttend. INeverCry 23:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I do not find this to be a valid claim by Blue: for all the photos, "The photo description says that medical aid is being provided." For example: Nothing about medical aid in the description: "U.S. Army Sergeant Kornelia Rachwal gives a young Pakistani girl a drink of water as they are airlifted from Muzaffarabad to Islamabad, Pakistan, aboard a U.S. Army CH-47 Chinook helicopter on the 19 October 2005." Ditto for the description "English: Near Al Najaf, Iraq (April 08, 2003) -- U.S. Marine Corps Major Chris Hughes shares some time with an Iraqi girl during an effort to distribute food and water to Iraqi citizens in need. The U.S. military is working with international relief organizations to help provide food and medicine for the Iraqi people in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Operation Iraqi Freedom is the multinational coalition effort to liberate the Iraqi people, eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and end the regime of Saddam Hussein. U.S. Navy photo by Photographer's Mate 1st Class Arlo K. Abrahamson. (RELEASED)" being at best ambiguous -and then only if not reasonably considered. And those are just the two I looked at. User:Bluerasberry: you owe us an apology/explanation for the false and misleading claims, methinks.--Elvey (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Elvey I feel like you are being aggressive to me and it makes me uncomfortable. Could you please email me so that we can arrange to talk by video? I prefer to talk face to face and not by wikitext when people raise issues of sexual exploitation and false and misleading claims. Phone could work also. Thanks - if this does not work for you then we can check other options to make this less personal. I mean no offense and sorry if I did something to offend you. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I clarified and then refactored my comment; I don't mean to make you uncomfortable.--Elvey (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I have a brief explanation. For the picture proposed for deletion, it was the nominator who suggested that it was medical. You are correct that the image description does not say that it is. For the images I presented in the mini-gallery, their descriptions all use the word "medical" or "medicine". I hope that helps. You yourself quoted that the image is described as "to help provide food and medicine". I feel that there is something private about going to a place for medicine and then being photographed, perhaps without understanding that one's photo will be published. I have the opinion that some people might want to access health services and products privately. I feel like the word "medicine" was used in the description to suggest that the picture represented giving health services. Sorry for the confusion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's clear you do understand the difference between "The photo description says that medical aid is being provided." and "The photo description includes the word 'medical" or "medicine". It's plain as day. The former is clearly overreaching. I hear that you believe that the word "medical" or "medicine" was used in each description to suggest that each picture represented giving health services. I just don't see any evidence to support the belief. For example I see no clear evidence that the model went "to a place for medicine", not for food. --Elvey (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Elvey Thanks - I acknowledge that you understand my perspective. Please do not presume what I understand. As you say, the supporting facts that I am seeing is the use of the word "medicine" or some variant in the description and from that, I take the perspective that the image is intended to represent access to medical care. It is good that you have a different perspective and that our perspectives are not aligned. The only part that I dispute is that I might understand and believe something differently, but somehow for some reason I am arguing something different despite clearly seeing a different truth. I assure you - I care for privacy in health care whatever that means, and if I see someone describe an event as health care I have sympathy for whatever they are doing. You are free to say that I am overreaching and I acknowledge that there is a lot of variation in what people call health care. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it's clear you do understand the difference between "The photo description says that medical aid is being provided." and "The photo description includes the word 'medical" or "medicine". It's plain as day. The former is clearly overreaching. I hear that you believe that the word "medical" or "medicine" was used in each description to suggest that each picture represented giving health services. I just don't see any evidence to support the belief. For example I see no clear evidence that the model went "to a place for medicine", not for food. --Elvey (talk) 07:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- In a general way privacy rights involve that the individual has the ability to evade the gaze of others, especially that of the public authorities. Does the child have the choice to be there at this precise time? no I don't think. Even prisoners can have their heads hidden (in some countries at least) when they are moved by police/justice, because they have privacy rights and they can't avoid the situation (public place). And here does the child have the possibility to avoid the situation? clearly not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, this is a misinterpretation of how a right to privacy is applied as in most countries that have the concept, it is much more limited than a general right to "evade the gaze of others". The summary at Right_to_privacy#An_individual_right may help, though there is no measurable definition of a "reasonable expectation of privacy" outside of the obvious cases of your home, your body or your private life. Even in these "obvious" cases, there is plenty of legal case history that demonstrates that these can be invaded either in the public interest or by the state when there is cause and that retrospective suppression is impossible. Anyway, at this point the discussion is a long tangent away from the deletion nomination and these issues should be part of building a consensus view on what guidelines are needed. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep We would need to delete millions of files if this becomes standard practice. Amada44 talk to me 13:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per User:Bluerasberry and Nyttend --Jarekt (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- When you're not responsible about your display in a public place, of course it is legitimate you have the possibility to ask that the privacy rights become respected, and I'm sure that many legal courts could go in the sense of a "deletion" because if you don't chose by yourself to be in a public place then you have no control on your image and on the emotions shown on your face and yes you can claim you privacy rights have not been respected, especially in the context of a close-up. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will also be happy to know to what extent a US army vehicule is a public place? everyone can ride in? Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- OH. MY. I wrote above, "::::For crying out loud, Christian Ferrer, READ COM:IDENT! Because AGAIN: public place and private place are legal terms with nonstandard meanings in this context.--Elvey (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)" --Elvey (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, of course. There’s better ways to score points in turf wars, Jim — please do that without damaging Commons. Thank you! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Tuvalkin: Do not forgot to thanks Fae if the image is deleted Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- That remark is way out of line, Tuválkin. I have no interest in "scoring points in turf wars" -- I think my value here is fairly well established. I am very disappointed in the reactions above -- this is a refuge child in an obviously poor situation and most of my colleagues above are splitting hairs the keep the image. I acknowledge that it is a great photograph -- that's why I picked it. I certainly wouldn't want a photo of one of my grand-children published on the Internet just because he or she suffered some sort of tragedy and I hoped that our colleagues would agree. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 23:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was above as sincere as when I praise you, Jim. This reeks of either extreme naivety or some kind of machination (as in the URAA case and others) or a mix of both. Neither does wonders to improve how others view your value — which, as anyone else’s, is a dynamic thing and may go up or down. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I’m not saying Jim did anything wrong concerning the URAA case, just that some people did, and the result was a net loss for Commons with massive pointy deletions. And now I smell the same here, maybe I’m too naive or too paranoid. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:37, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I was above as sincere as when I praise you, Jim. This reeks of either extreme naivety or some kind of machination (as in the URAA case and others) or a mix of both. Neither does wonders to improve how others view your value — which, as anyone else’s, is a dynamic thing and may go up or down. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- The child is not the cause, directly or indirectly, of the event that led to its presence in this vehicle private or not. The child has no control over the situation surrounding and no way to hide his emotions. She is fully engulfed in exterior looks, including by the look of the photographer and have no escape for some privacy or intimacy in this particular moment of vulnerability.
In such a case a court of justice decides no doubt that your right to privacy was not respected because you are not voluntarily go on the public place and so you do not voluntarily consented to what your image is visible there. Even more if it is a big plan (close-up) that suffers no possible privacy in a moment of vulnerability. And the fact there is a US army stamp "approved and published" is not sacred, neither here nor in a court of justice. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- But why delete it? Most of the world press photos are very similar to this one: 1, 2, 3, 4 Amada44 talk to me 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- All your exemples are very good exemples. Just one word about press magazines, they have regular trials in which they must financially compensate the plaintiffs and/or sometimes removes images but in the end they are the winners, and you know why? because the money they earn is higher final. On each of your exemples how many peoples have the possibility to complain? really? none, they are all in far countries, in misery, vulnerability, in disaster situations, and with much bigger troubles than "privacy rights" on magazine covers. How many peoples on the exemples are aware of publication of their image, how many are even aware that some magazine earn sometimes a lot of money with their image, and sometimes in terrible situation? how many are aware they can have financially compensate in a trial in a justice court. Do you think really if the man on your exemple, is your brother or your father, a justice court will not decide the cancellation of the publication, if you make a legal complaint. Of course it will.
The case is the same here, imagine it's your daughter, the child is obviously, rescued ,yes indeed, but in a situation of vulnerability, and in my opinion, all trials in court of justice will conduce to the cancellation of the publication. No matter it is a US army publication or a National geographic one. But maybe we "don't care"!? after all she is Pakistanese, very far from us, and it will certainly never be any legal complaint. (this last sentence is a sarcasm)
I did not had the beginning of an idea to nominate this image for deletion. It's Fae idea. But now it's done I don't see why the privacy rights do not have to be defended. I don't say if the child was me in the past or a member of my family I would make some complaint. But I like the idea privacy rights can be respected in a case of vulnerability situation. And the fact that all these kind of photos are photos of persons who don't know they have the possibility and even have not the possibility to make legal complaints as we have, us, in some of ours countries is a very serious matter of concern too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC) - I do not have to remember you that certainly a lot of the editors and directors of magazines or of the world press, drive in nice and expensive cars, then please, do not throw you on the button "keep" it allows commercial reuse, and potential profits...just because it's a beautiful image in more for our database. And I do not care royally of the way in which the US military or the world press address the issue of private rights. Neither one nor the other is not sacred, is not perfect, and don't surpass a court of justice. I own my own way to think and my actions are not copied on the majority established when I think it is out of line. Christian Ferrer (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- All your exemples are very good exemples. Just one word about press magazines, they have regular trials in which they must financially compensate the plaintiffs and/or sometimes removes images but in the end they are the winners, and you know why? because the money they earn is higher final. On each of your exemples how many peoples have the possibility to complain? really? none, they are all in far countries, in misery, vulnerability, in disaster situations, and with much bigger troubles than "privacy rights" on magazine covers. How many peoples on the exemples are aware of publication of their image, how many are even aware that some magazine earn sometimes a lot of money with their image, and sometimes in terrible situation? how many are aware they can have financially compensate in a trial in a justice court. Do you think really if the man on your exemple, is your brother or your father, a justice court will not decide the cancellation of the publication, if you make a legal complaint. Of course it will.
- But why delete it? Most of the world press photos are very similar to this one: 1, 2, 3, 4 Amada44 talk to me 14:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oh and you show exemples, but where are the exemples of free licensed images (allowing commercial reuse) of close-up of European children being rescued, and of American children being rescued? there is no disaster in our countries maybe? USA had a lot of disasters, where are the close-ups of American children being rescued or/and in difficult situations freely licensed? Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go . Amada44 talk to me 15:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I can not deny that you have found, but your picture is very far from a close-up on a child, the main subject is obviously a "FEMA USAR member assists residents" not at all the child. Please a close-up. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- One of the characteristic of the nominated image is closeness and intimacy with the subject. These are the same characteristics that make this a beautiful picture. These are the same characteristics, "closeness and intimacy", that bring here the question of privacy rights and of expectation of privacy. Open both images at the same time in two different windows and you will see what I mean. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Here you go . Amada44 talk to me 15:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- By seing the votes I think then you will all agree that a photographer approaches your children, without your consent, when they are just walking on the way to school in a street, a public place. You will agree that, without your consent, he take close-up images of your children, images that cause a sense of intimacy to the viewer of the image. And then you will agree that without your consent, he publish under a license that allow commercial reuse these beautiful close-ups of your child in a public place but after all, the child did not receive a medical treatment, he was just walking...Christian Ferrer (talk) 08:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per Blue Rasberry's and Fae's reasoning at the top. --Pmsyyz (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Try to do a case study with the nomination for deletion of this image may be a good thing. Maybe some policies can indeed be improved. At this time there is a clear consensus to keep. One of the most striking things about the defenders of the “keep” is the inevitable appearance soon or later of arguments like “moral panic”, “this is damaging for Commons”.
Let me say you a little thing, privacy rights are a serious matter and are not a simple war between “moral defenders” and the “nice sympatic people”. A Commons policy can not be influenced by this kind of war. I'm not a moral panic nor Jim. Some of us live in countries that respect freedom, and these “privacy rights” are one of the most solid pillars of this freedom, this is a fact. So that would be great that when someone wants to highlight a potential breach of privacy that he is not charged, guilty or scared with sentence like “what do you do? You damage Commons!”.
People have died and are still dying for freedom, and also for rights to privacy. Privacy rights must be defended with strength because it is a wealth. The privacy rights defenders are heroes. The policy of "one more good image at all costs” is not better than the one of “moral panic”.
To be honest I’m sure you understood that I’m not a expert in “law” but I think everything I've written. The fairest fights are not necessarily the easiest or most obvious. The battles that deserve to be undertaken are often the one that go against the consensus and these are those that require the most courage. Glory to those who are able to lead these fighting, the others are just sheep. Pay attention to what you get out of all this. Good day. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC) - Keep I don't think the child has a "reasonable expectation of privacy" in a rescue situation, nor is a soldier giving a bottle of water to a child a private personal occasion comparable to receiving medical treatment in a hospital. One cannot rationalise the legal situation from clever arguments: the law is what it is. Anyone who follows photographic forums knows there is a huge variation in opinion wrt "street photography" and some countries make it legally very difficult to take photos without consent at all. Some people think it is unethical to take someone's photo in the street without consent, whereas others point to a long tradition of street photography that requires capturing candid moments. If the rest of the world cannot come to an agreement over this, why should users on Commons? One can twist a description of the situation one way or another till we all fall out with each other. In these cases, in the absence of specific legal advice, perhaps it is best to consider how respected professionals handle this. I think the strongest arguments are that (a) it is not an amateur photo -- the US military published the picture so it presumably cleared their legal department and (b) it is no different to countless photos used in newspapers, aid campaigns and award winning journalism, where the photographer is not handing round model-release papers for the refugees to sign. -- Colin (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The file has been firstly published on defenselink.mil. There is no evidence that the file in question is hosted on the aforementioned webpage in violation of the law. Apart from that, i see consensus to keep the file. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
no permission 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 06:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 06:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 06:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
a small format, blurry image of an unknown person, of no educative value Richard Avery (talk) 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Digital marketing sujit agency). MER-C 08:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Sherlock2016/sandbox). MER-C 08:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 24 February 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) 15:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 20:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Prawa autorskie. Milagros aal (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Steinsplitter: No license since 18 February 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
This file was initially tagged by Krdbot as Copyvio (Copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: external source, no license, no permission.
Not a copyvio, as a photo of a 15th century portrait. However it fails to meet scope due to tiny size. Fæ (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: still no license at all. --JuTa 19:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Image of en:user:Man-Ching Yu. Author requests deletion (OTRS 2016021310006605). Unlikely to be useful to commons. Ronhjones (Talk) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 20:55, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 20:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
wiki.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
wiki.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
wiki.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: and still no license at all. --JuTa 20:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
wiki.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --JuTa 21:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete there is no freedom of panorama in France for this building completed in 1954 Ww2censor (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. — Racconish ☎ 16:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, also the photo was published in Flickr under non-free license, so licensereview failed. Taivo (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
AS far as I understand the description, this doesn't seem to be the uploader's own work. El Grafo (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: If the image is in scope, then we need a permission from the artist. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of likely non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
It was mistakenly uploaded - we do not have ownership of this image as previously thought CHC2015 (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio https://www.flickr.com/photos/tattooedjoker/11914159144. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:12, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, not realistically useful for an educational purpose. Out of scope. Storkk (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata: uploader's assertion of {{Own work}} in doubt. If uploader is copyright holder, this should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, http://www.pancevac-online.rs/arhiva/index.php?module=article&issue_id=300&id=50735. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deborah Tarr should confirm license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 13:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 13:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Dbious "own" work (3 KB) 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 13:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination https://www.pinterest.com/pin/417497827929891629/. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Виктор Волков 15 (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on this duplicated or triplicated set of uploads, all claimed as own work, yet due to age, size, metadata and so on, obviously rephotographs of some unacknowledged source/s including newspapers, and son on. Some of these images might be able to be kept if more information were known about them, but certainly the duplicate and triplicates should be culled from the series if any are retained.
- File:Решение о переименовании.jpg
- File:Решение о названии улицы.jpg
- File:Улица Марии Амамич с высоты птичьего полёта.jpg
- File:Обсуждения.jpg
- File:Смотрю вдаль.jpg
- File:Раздумье.jpg
- File:За работой над произведением.jpg
- File:Чтение книги.jpg
- File:Амамич.jpg
- File:Мария .jpg
- File:Педагогический коллектив.jpg
- File:Мария Николаевна и её танцевальный коллектив.jpg
- File:Портрет "Задумчивость".jpg
- File:В раздумье.jpg
- File:За писательской работой.jpg
- File:Коллеги.jpg
- File:Новая книга.jpg
- File:Мария Амамич.jpg
- File:Мария Николаевна.jpg
- File:В школе.jpg
- File:Мария Николаевна в танцевальном коллективе.jpg
- File:Песня Марии Амамич в газете.jpg
- File:Фото в старшей школе.jpg
- File:Фото в первой школе.jpg
- File:Мария Амамич с подругой Духиновой Устиньей.jpg
- File:Статья в газете Эвенчанка.jpg
- File:Статья в газете.jpg
- File:Маленькая Мария Николаевна Амамич.jpg
- File:Книга Не провожайте с тоской улетающих птиц.jpg
- File:Мария Николаевна Амамич.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Official Germany Coat of Arms can get only with permission derivative used. Source: File:Unterfranken Wappen.svg PS: also direct called: last sentence[2] ↔ User: Perhelion 13:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Actually? Why {{PD-Coa-Germany}} does not apply? --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- o.k. (1) Is the original coat per OTRS or others by the authoriteies approved as well? (2) I'm sending currently an email to the authorithies of Unterfranken to get permission, this may last longer than a week... please give some time before deleting decision. (3) Same question comes up as by Amitie 10g. br --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good, then we wait. @(3) per {{Insignia}} "usage restrictions", derivative work is not allowed, see also COM:COA #Legal restrictions on usage. PS: I know that not many people are aware of this, there are already many images deleted to this (but I'v no example yet). ↔ User: Perhelion 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Email was sent Feb-17 to the "pressereferat" Unterfranken; no answer yet. Suppose longer time needed... will re-call them after one week without answer. br --Commander-pirx (talk) 12:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good, then we wait. @(3) per {{Insignia}} "usage restrictions", derivative work is not allowed, see also COM:COA #Legal restrictions on usage. PS: I know that not many people are aware of this, there are already many images deleted to this (but I'v no example yet). ↔ User: Perhelion 19:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- o.k. (1) Is the original coat per OTRS or others by the authoriteies approved as well? (2) I'm sending currently an email to the authorithies of Unterfranken to get permission, this may last longer than a week... please give some time before deleting decision. (3) Same question comes up as by Amitie 10g. br --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
News: I have not yet got an Email. I would like to discuss this on our WP:Unterfranken meeting March-12 2016 with the participants as few have better contacts to district authorithies. I please to not delete, until we have an info back from Unterfranken authorities, even as it is used for WPians "Stammtisch" only. Thanks. br --Commander-pirx (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
- Got positive answer - to whom / how to send? br --Commander-pirx (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: permission per email received. ↔ User: Perhelion 21:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Building rendering with no proper attribution. Source: http://federacia.moscow/federacia.html Doblecaña (talk) 14:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unlikely to be own work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete there is no evidence this image is freely licensed from a webpage with a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the source page. Ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: created by abuser, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cjones934
Delete there is no evidence this image is freely licensed from a webpage with a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the company webpage. Ww2censor (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: created by abuser, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cjones934
Delete the identical image http://www.comstruc.com/gallery/slides/slide.jpg is found on the manufacturer's website linked from their main page http://www.comstruc.com/ (image 1/18). There is no evidence this image is the work of the uploader as claimed nor that they have the right to freely licence the image. The webpage has a clear copyright notice at the bottom with ARR. Ww2censor (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Krd: created by abuser, Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Cjones934
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)
I am the uploader and owner on this image and it is my testicle and it's a private. I don't want the world seeing it. My name appears on the file page and I don't want to be identified as the person who uploaded it, by family or friends. Nemesis_ZN (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused thus not strictly necessary, also Com:Penis. Next time please consider this before uploading. --Basvb (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
not own work; similar image link Biplab Anand (Talk) 06:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The other images are smaller, but earlier. --Basvb (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. What is this? Why? For what? Marcus Cyron (talk) 08:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep COM:INUSE on v:User:Yadarwish/Individualweeklyupdate. It seems that Wikiversity uses a lot of pictures which are of questionable usability for other projects, though. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use thus in scope, categorisation welcome. --Basvb (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Own work ? 2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 08:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![08:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983-2016-02-17T08:38:00.000Z-File:Copertina_Libro_"La_prima_stella".jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: own work unlikely. --Basvb (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
![16:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-Basvb-2016-03-18T16:46:00.000Z-File:Copertina_Libro_"La_prima_stella".jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Aparadisi86 (talk · contribs)
[edit]no permissons
2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 08:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: We need evidence of permission, see Com:OTRS. --Basvb (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Very low quality. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: although possibly in scope, own work doubtful. --Basvb (talk) 16:47, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Max Wagner escritor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, can be found earlier on web, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Max Wagner escritor. Uploaded since 11.02.2016 for Brazilian writer pt:TEREZA RECHE (fresh recreated) including selfies and book covers, which were derived from elsewhere copyrighted content. Permissions needed. Considering already deleted on 29.01.2016 via pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/TEREZA RECHE + pt:Wikipédia:Páginas para eliminar/Tereza Reche + etc., they may be also out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: It is expected, that this recreated ptwiki entry will be deleted again.
- File:ThumbnailGeneratorSuperBig.jpg
- File:O SILNCIO DE EULLER 1430432718447424SK1430432718B.jpg
- File:Cover front 2.jpg
- File:Cover front big (1).jpg
- File:Tereza reche 3.jpg
- File:Treza reche 2.jpg
- File:Livro 5.jpg
- File:Livro 1.jpg
- File:Livro 2.jpg
- File:Tereza Reche 3.jpg
- File:Tereza Reche.jpg
- File:Tereza Reche 2.jpg
- File:Eis que o Lobo.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 09:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Related: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Tereza Reche. Gunnex (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tereza Reche (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used.
- File:Condecoração com a Comenda de Honra ao Mérito - Associação Brasileira de Liderança.jpg
- File:PRÊMIO CECÍLIA MEIRELES.jpg
- File:TEREZA RECHE.jpg
- File:Dra. Tereza Reche.jpg
- File:ESCRITORA TEREZA RECHE.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:SELFIE. Sismarinho (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Old photographs, which are probably not own work. More information about the photographers and the publication history is needed in order to check if they might be in the public domain.
- File:Dien-Bien-Phu.jpg
- File:Pont de DALLET.jpg
- File:1931-Tour de Contrôle du Bourget.jpg
- File:Au BIAFRA.jpg
- File:R.Morancay-1930-1980.jpg
- File:50 ans de Carrière.jpg
- File:LIBERATION.jpg
BrightRaven (talk) 09:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:05, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jader.miguel (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF. Uploaded in a row on 17.02.2016 for pt:Jorge Negretti. Considering also File:Motocross Freestyle.jpg, previously published via http://globoesporte.globo.com/pa/noticia/2013/04/belem-recebe-o-motocross-show-no-proximo-sabado.html (2013, © Copyright 2000-2014 Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A) = http://s.glbimg.com/es/ge/f/original/2013/04/18/motocross_foto.jpg (higher res, identical exif), giving credits to "Foto: Jader Filho/Divulgação". Further details and/or permissions needed.
Gunnex (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo. No clear scope. Josve05a (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused (jpg) logo. No clear scope. Josve05a (talk) 10:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE; per description obviously uploaded for promotional purpose. -- Túrelio (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
copyright logo. Mavrikant (talk) 11:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Desire Bakunduwukize (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal photos, out of scope
Mjrmtg (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete low resolution image with no metadata from a low quantity (5 images) brand new Flickr user is most likely flickrwashing stolen from a website. Ww2censor (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyvio: http://www.florianopesaro.com.br/blogdofloriano/sobre/ Rrburke (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Yasu (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete low resolution image with no metadata from a low quantity (5 images) brand new Flickr user is most likely flickrwashing stolen from a website. Ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyvio: http://www.florianopesaro.com.br/blogdofloriano/sobre/ Rrburke (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Yasu (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete low resolution image with no metadata from a low quantity (5 images) brand new Flickr user is most likely flickrwashing stolen from a website. Ww2censor (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete as copyvio: http://www.florianopesaro.com.br/blogdofloriano/sobre/ Rrburke (talk) 15:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Yasu (talk) 15:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photos, out of scope
- File:Sunday cricket match at podina sector.jpg
- File:Sunday cricket match view.jpg
- File:BBQ party 2013.jpg
- File:First BBQ party 2008.jpg
- File:Podina group sunday cricket view.jpg
- File:Podina group BBQ party 2013.jpg
Mjrmtg (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete low resolution image with no metadata from a low quantity (5 images) brand new Flickr user is most likely flickrwashing stolen from a website. Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-Ww2censor-2016-02-17T14:33:00.000Z-File:Logo_da_campanha_"Dê_Mais_Que_Esmola_Dê_Futuro".jpg){kind=link}
- Delete as Flickrwashed logo. Rrburke (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, confirming Flickr logic czar 19:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
![16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/17#c-P199-2016-03-21T16:14:00.000Z-File:Logo_da_campanha_"Dê_Mais_Que_Esmola_Dê_Futuro".jpg){kind=link}
Delete low resolution image with no metadata from a low quantity (5 images) brand new Flickr user is most likely flickrwashing stolen from a website. Ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: widely published on the web [3]; no evidence of permission. Rrburke (talk) 15:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete same as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Logo da campanha "Dê Mais Que Esmola Dê Futuro".jpg czar 19:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:14, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angela Cecilia Medina Lanestosa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of company of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:GIAP Grupo de Ingeniería Aplicada al Petróleo.pdf
- File:GIAP Grupo de Ingeniería Aplicada al Petróleo 2.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:15, 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) 15:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 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) 15:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
No evidence that this corporate logo is actually freely licensed. I doubt that it is. — Scott • talk 15:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo, no educational value. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely not own work. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability. No evidence of permission(s). EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 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) 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:21, 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) 15:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
self promotion Bazj (talk) 15:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused low quality autopromo, same for File:EWA logo.jpg. The third File:The Egyptian Welding Academy 1.jpg might be useful. Pibwl (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The 3rd one was deleted because of its poor quality, superseded by numerous better ones at Category:Welding. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Obviously promotional upload, please read below the description template. Unclear who is the copyright holder of this image, no metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
This image has nothing to do with our company Lanca Contracting Limited. Please remove the Lanca Contracting Limited tag to this image. Thank you. Janette Dengo T. 519-756-1880 65.95.28.51 19:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep – no reason for deletion. Nobody claimed that the image has anything to do with your company. There is no mention of Lanca Contracting Limited on the file description (aside from in the deletion tag that you added). The image depicts a rickshaw, and the word for that in Malay and Manglish is "lanca". —LX (talk, contribs) 20:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per User:LX. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
These look like album or CD covers, but regardless of who took them, Commons rules require all images in a collage be uploaded and licensed separately. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Obvious self-promotion. Image is also very small Threeohsix (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 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) 22:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Isn't used on any Wikipedia articles. Fails WP:VGIMAGES. Soetermans (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: photo cropped to remove personal aspect. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image INeverCry 23:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Émile Fernand-Dubois is dead in 1952. Copyright violation. 82.124.241.241 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Copyright violation, no COM:FOP in France. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Niki de Saint-Phalle is dead in 2002. Copyright violation. 82.124.241.241 21:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, installation is obviously in a public place. --Enyavar (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, no COM:FOP in France. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative of non-free product packaging. —LX (talk, contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Calligraphy by Jiang Zemin
[edit]Calligraphy work by Jiang Zemin is copyrighted
Wcam (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment I have restored these files, not because I disbelieve the nomination, but they were removed by me by mistake with VFC. I'd like a different administrator to close this request to avoid any apparent conflicts. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-signature_tag#China.2C_People.27s_Republic_of. --Jcb (talk) 17:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: [4]. Yann (talk) 20:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Larger image here: http://s3.birthmoviesdeath.com/images/made/citybargeflooded_1200_783_81_s.jpg Yann (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Yann: The larger image is from a blog entry dated years after the enwiki upload of this image (and even more years after it's creation in 2004, per the EXIF). Searches don't show an 'original' source, though... the one you found might be zoomed (though the 1200 pixel width makes that less likely). Probably indeed a Delete on PRP grounds. Reventtalk 10:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Handwritten or calligraphic signatures of Chinese people that violate Commons:When to use the PD-signature tag#China, People's Republic of. Specifically, they all: a) are handwritten or calligraphic signatures; b) signed by people who are not dead 50 years ago; c) lack indication that the signatures were originally from documents of legislative, administrative, or judicial nature.
- File:Deng Xiaoping Sign.png
- File:Deng Xiaoping Sign.svg
- File:Deng Xiaoping signature.png
- File:Geng Yanbo Sign.jpg
- File:Hu Jintao Sign.png
- File:Hu Jintao Sign.svg
- File:Hua Guofeng Sign.png
- File:Hua Guofeng Signature.svg
- File:Li Peng Sign.png
- File:Mao Zedong sign.jpg
- File:Mao Zedong Sign.svg
- File:Mao Zedong Signature.png
- File:Mao Zedong Signature.svg
- File:Wen Jiabao Sign.png
- File:Xi Jinping sign.svg
- File:Zeng Qinghong signature.jpg
- File:Zhao Ziyang Sign.png
- File:Zhu Rongji Sign.png
- File:Zhu Rongji signature.jpg
- File:宋子文在联合国成立大会亲笔签名.jpg
- File:宋美龄签名.jpg
- File:李先念签名.jpg
Wcam (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
If in doubt, please consider Commons:Precautionary principle. --Wcam (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: You exceed the remit and deleted File:Signature of Sun Yat Sen - Farewell letter to Soviet Russia 1925 - dark version.svg which is not mentioned on this list. You are overstepping the boundaries and are proving problematic for other projects with a deletionist approach. Precautionary principle is not meant to have you acting as a deletionist, the wording is "significant doubt" and that is not the case here. Please undelete images that were not nominated, or otherwise list those deleted images that you believe are also pertinent and why. Please look to lift your standard and be communicative to others in this and other projects, this is not "what ever Ellin thinks" this is a community where things are discussed and consensus should be reached. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: Reverted the file, I only clicked on the ones in the Visual Editor which had (d) on them, sorry if I missed one! Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ellin Beltz: You need to go back and completely review what you have done, there are many that have been deleted that were not on the list. More mindfulness, less haste; consideration of affects of actions across multiple wikis by CommonsDelinker. Diligence starts at home, not with the oversight of others. Accuracy is important. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
redundant & inferior quality: too tiny, dimensionless scale Maximilian Reininghaus (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and unused. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DocMuséo as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: optional URL Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 23:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no source of file, not own work. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
A better resolution of this picture can be found on the Internet, so a proof of authorization is needed. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 14:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; and also the one on the internet read (C) Marcel Hartman. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:44, 22 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) 15:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- There is no valid reason, why this book has fewer notability than all other files in Category:PDF files in German. How can you judge this? Вы не говорите по-немецки?--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; and also, was stated to be own work by uploader (presumably living) but tagged with a license which said the uploader had been dead 70 years. It is not possible to be both dead 70 years and alive to upload a picture. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Not "own work", invalid license - see http://karlshuker.blogspot.de/2013/02/the-bili-bondo-apes-unmasking-congos.html. Maybe PD (in a 1912 book), but impossible to tell without knowing the photographer. GermanJoe (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; definately not own work. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The bird, while consisting of only shapes, enough shapes make an original artwork. Josve05a (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of modern paintings. Taivo (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work od modern paintings. Taivo (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of System design Thatonewikiguy (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Fake license. Even in the name of the file mentioned "by Panteleev". Not own - anyway. Bilderling (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. imho rather thumbnail format, missing exif and links to media used at Wikimedia Commons, as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. imho rather thumbnail format (Canon ES 5D?), and media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 17:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
DR exactly as per File:Vishwakarmans mahesh.v.s.kerala.png, imho a duplicate, Roland zh (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AntonTsarenko (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious own works
- File:LDC packages.jpg
- File:Package gold.jpg
- File:Package silver.jpg
- File:Package bronze.jpg
- File:Package social.jpg
- File:Skeleton-2.jpg
- File:Piccolo inventis.jpg
- File:Alisatest6 fmt.jpeg
2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 17:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio from [5]. TinEye says "Crawled on 2014-08-27" so they are not copying Wikipedia. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.jozsefattilaszinhaz.hu/files/images/gallery_main/big/13922983545494.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Legal filing not now in use on any project uploaded as part of an attempted promotional campaign on enwiki. Regards, James(talk/contribs) 17:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
EXIF names dfferent copyright holders
- File:Daniel Marques.jpg
- File:Daniel Marques Live in Nisville Jazz Festival.jpg
- File:Daniel Marques live at Dom Omladine (Serbia).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
2003:45:5C6F:1201:B1D9:D84A:3651:1983 17:56, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Found on http://www.biography.com/people/john-deacon-21213183 and other pages, unlikely to be own work. — Yerpo Eh? 18:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Found on http://www.rockmusic.org/queen/fotos/john/galeria2.htm and other sites, unlikely to be own work. — Yerpo Eh? 18:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kookyrabbit (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims. The uploader previously posted a question about how to correctly attribute photographs taken by someone else at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/06#Need some help with image copyright uploads, also crossposted at Commons:Upload help/Archive/2015/06#Need some help with image copyright upload tags. Naturally, answers in both venues pointed to Commons:OTRS. Nevertheless, the uploader proceeded to upload File:Pic campusGrounds.png, which had to be deleted because permission was never submitted. Half a year later, the user uploads these four low-resolution but otherwise professional-looking photos, claiming to have created them personally.
- File:Curtin University Engineering Pavillion.jpg
- File:RESIZED.jpg
- File:Thumb Grounds.jpg
- File:Curtin Grounds.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted medallions. MKFI (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Publicity photograph. Used in media before being uploaded to Commons (http://www.aamulehti.fi/Kotimaa/1194859011670/artikkeli/puheenaihe+auttaako+lisavuosi+koulussa+nuoria.html). OTRS permission required. MKFI (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No educational value, Imaginary picture of the subject using morpheus and descedants photos as stated in the description Ah3kal (talk) 05:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see why this would not be in scope. However the incorrect date and likely incorrect authorship claim are reasons I would consider deletion for. Basvb (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Per description, this image was created using photos of descendants of the depicted person. This is a derivative work of said images. Sources for these images are not given, likely copyright violation. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
_(1973).png){kind=link}
_(1973).png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Неверное изображение герба, не соответствует описанию и реальному историческому изображению Alexandronikos (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
_(1973).png){kind=link}
Kept: In use, therefore in scope. If there is a content dispute, please resolve that first before re-nominating for deletion. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
_(1973).png){kind=link}
_(1973).png&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
дубль Герб Карпинска 1973.gif Некорректное изображение герба Alexandronikos (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Какой же это дубль, если в обоих изображениях наоборот присутствуют явные отличия? Это два варианта одного герба (точнее, эмблемы), "встречающиеся в литературе и сети" (подробнее см.: здесь). Если более конкретно, то первое изображение (в данном случае, File:Герб Карпинска 1973.gif), приводится в книге Соболевой Н. "Гербы городов России" (стр. 409), а второе изображение (File:Coat of Arms of Karpinsk (Sverdlovsk oblast) (1973).png), по всей видимости, было размещено на сайте Уральской Геральдической Ассоциации. -- Александр Танчугин (talk) 13:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
- Эта эмблема, нам, жителям Карпинска, неизвестна. Чистой воды выдумка...--Alexandronikos (talk) 14:06, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
- Суть не в том, что выдумка, а что нет. Суть в том, что в этой номинации Вы сами противоречите себе. Сначала пишите, что выставленное на удаление изображение - дубль такого-то файла, потом - что оно некорректно. А в чём оно некорректно? В том, что не использовалось городом и не воспроизводилось на сувенирных значках? Но ведь оно тоже в целом соответствует описанию (за исключением цвета ели), приведённому в приложении к соответствующему решению исполкома СНД. При этом, к примеру, про цвет шестерни (какая она должна быть - золотая или серебряная?) в том же описании вроде бы ничего не сказано. В любом случае, я не настаиваю на том, чтобы сохранить номинируемый на удаление файл на Викискладе, я просто высказал свои сомнения в обоснованности номинации. -- Александр Танчугин (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion specified. --Jcb (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
Die Datei ist fehlerhaft und kann nicht angezeigt werden Manuela (Diskussion) 10:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: File is fine, only the thumbnail servers can not generate thumbnails for files of this size. No reason for deletion. I suggest you manually create a thumbnail and link to this file from the thumbnail's file description page. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Neither Jean-Claude Allamelle nor company Quinternaire are mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in fr.wiki. Photo quality is bad. Out of project scope. But the file is used in fr.wiki on subpage of IP – I suppose, that this does not count. Taivo (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Picture of non-notable person. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright work by Jean-Bernard Métais (born in 1954) Selbymay (talk) 11:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: No COM:FOP in France. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded the wrong picture. I will upload another one without my name in the metadata Rav3nloft (talk) 12:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. Please upload new version and then request deletion of the old version. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
not in use, not own work, low resolution cpoy of File:King Charles I after original by van Dyck.jpg Kareyac (talk) 14:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
The Time magazine cover is copyrighted. It is obviously not de minimis as it is the only reason this image might be educationally useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, agree with nominator. We might consider blurring the copyrightable part of the TIME cover. As it is somewhat grainy anyway, it might not take away too much from the overall impression of the image. Regards, --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is routine request for small photo without metadata. Is the uploader really the photographer? Why the photo is so small? Can you upload a bigger version, for example, 2000×1500 pixels? Can you upload a version with EXIF data? This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
not in use, source not own work, low resolution copy of File:Herakles lion Louvre CA1340.jpg Kareyac (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be own or free Bilderling (talk) 13:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
According to EXIF, the author is Florin Putura. If he is the uploader or the uploader has a clear approval from the author/copyright holder, then an OTRS ticket should clarify. —Andrei S. Talk 13:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
logo can't be own Bilderling (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
logo can't be own Bilderling (talk) 14:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
unused, advertising, image with few details in description Pippobuono (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep sorry, I was wrong, this might be useful to illustrate the concept of RESPONSIBILITY Pippobuono (talk) 14:12, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Withdrawn --Natuur12 (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is painting of Ismet Mujeinović who died in 1984. Smooth_O (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:29, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused near duplicate of File:João Carlos Bacelar.jpg by same uploader. The only difference is right edge has been cropped of empty pixels. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This seal is highly unlikely to be user's own work, more likely COM:COPYVIO without more information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Recent architecture. No FoP in France. No proof of authorization. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 23:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 21:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
permission missing as interiors of buildings in Germany require owner permission Rypovyrorg (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Owner permission does not affect copyright status of the image. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
While Dr. Mukick uploaded this as his "own work", he also added it to the article of de:Philipp Herrmann who died in 1968. So it's not in the public domain yet. Sitacuisses (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mittlerweile habe ich eine e-mail an <permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org>
geschickt. Ich bin als Erbe eines Erben der Erbin des Malers der Rechteinhaber.
W. Himmelheber / Dr. Mukick
Kept: added OTRS pending tag. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
While Dr. Mukick uploaded this as his "own work", he also says that it was created by de:Philipp Herrmann who died in 1968. So it's not in the public domain yet. Sitacuisses (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Mittlerweile habe ich eine e-mail an <permissions-commons-de@wikimedia.org> geschickt. Ich bin als Erbe eines Erben der Erbin des Malers der Rechteinhaber. W. Himmelheber / Dr. Mukick
Kept: added OTRS pending tag. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Highly unlikely to be own work of the uploader, needs more information to be retained. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Doubtful own work claim. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this a re-creation of the bank's official logo? (Banco de Ponce ended existence in 1990, with Banco Popular as successor.) If so, it is probably copyrighted and authorship certainly isn't properly credited. Or is this the uploader's own imagining of a logo for the bank? If so, it is of limited or no educational value and therefore out of scope, despite its use on enwiki. — Ipoellet (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- As I stated in the details page, the drawing is my own work. Mercy11 (talk) 22:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Drawing of a copyrighted logo, therefore derivative of copyrighted work. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 21:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
This is painting of Tone Kralj who died in 1975. Smooth_O (talk) 14:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Paja Jovanović. Publication of a copyrighted image on a stamp/banknote/coin does makes that stamp/banknote/coin a state document and alters its copyright. Copyrights on (central government issued) Yugoslavian stamps are inherited by Serbia, and Serbian stamps are in public domain per {{PD-SerbiaGov}}. Materialscientist (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Materialscientist. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
No source / a fictional coat of arms / modification of a flag of a country / If this coat of arms exists, the user should tell us a link or source where is used this flag Liridon (talk) 08:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Though I agree with the nominator, the file is used on a project page. We must wait for a investigation of this page admissibility and possible suppression before discussing the deletion of the file. Kathisma (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I'm sorry Kathisma, but don't you see that even that page that use this image, is without references.--Liridon (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Kept, file is used. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
No longer used, see previous discussion. Zoupan (talk) 16:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
DeleteAs said upwards I agreed with the arguments given by the original nominator. But as this time, it is no longer used, we can delete the file without issues. Kathisma (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Poor duplicate of File:POL Warszawa COA.svg Halibutt (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Delete in favor of higher quality available versions (File:Warsaw emblem.png and File:POL Warszawa COA.svg). Riley Huntley (talk) 22:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Low quality. Alternatives are available. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Two problems here: First, the permission from the photograph is not a general license as required by Commons. Second, this 1978 work is copyrighted if there is a copyright notice on it. Therefore, we cannot keep it without both a clear free license from the photographer and evidence that there is no notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please show what information to which you are referring. Permission to use was not granted from the photograph. It was granted by the author. The image was transmitted via email with permission to use by the author. Therefore the license to use in this context is free and clear to use in this article. There is no notice to the otherwise. Have a nice day! StephenTS42 (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There are two copyrights here, one for the photograph and one for the mural itself. I don't see a license for either. In the Licensing section it says:
- "Permission to use given by original author: Sean / Wires in The Walls at Flickr. Photo not copied from Flickr. Author sent authorized copy via email: "Subject: Re: Permission to use photo "Sure, that would be fine! do you need it sent to you? Thanks for the interest! -Sean" Date: Aug 23, 2015"
I think that is intended to be a license for the photograph, but it is not a free, irrevocable license of the type we require and, as I noted above, we also need a license for the mural, or proof that it is in the Public Domain for lack of notice. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Attention! Please don't delete!
- This is a photograph of a public place made by the original author who granted permission to use here at Wikipedia. Since it is in a public place that can be viewed by anyone there is no license needed to photograph it. Nonetheless I have acknowledged the artist who painted it for the sake of courtesy. Thank you for nominating it for deletion based on its license. Thank you for deleting my original comment regarding the matter. I have updated the license which I hope will be satisfactory. If not, you have my blessing to proceed with its deletion. Since I am able to, I will take the time to go there; photograph the same image and upload it personally in hope that will be satisfactory. Best regards! StephenTS42 (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- Your statement above is entirely incorrect. The mural may or may not have a copyright. Although some countries allow photographs of copyrighted public art, only 41 (out of about 135 for which we have good information) extend that exception to 2D works and the United States is not one of them. See COM:FOP for a more complete discussion of this issue.
- Therefore, even if you photograph the work yourself, the image cannot be kept on Commons without evidence that the mural is not under copyright. This is not hard -- if you photograph it, you must carefully examine the work and be able to say that there is no copyright notice (the author's name and the copyright symbol (c) or the word "copyright"). Notice is usually in one of the corners, but that is not required. If there is notice, then the work is still under copyright and in order to keep an image of it on Commons we must have a free license from the painter. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
s no
- If my statement is incorrect as you indicate, entirely or otherwise, then why have you not nominated every other uploaded photograph of a public place in The Commons for deletion with the same specious reasoning? The only act that is taking place here, that is in entirety, is your unreasonable hostility! What would happen to Wikipedia if all photographs of a public places were to be in violation of a copyright? There can be no copyright for a photograph of what anyone can otherwise see in a public place. I will also thank you to stop modifying my comments as you have in the above and past. Best wishes! StephenTS42 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Again:
- The rules vary widely from country to country.
- Many images of public places do not have copyrighted works in them. Many works of sculpture and murals in the USA do not have the copyright notice that was required until 1989, so they are not covered by copyright. As noted above, this mural may be one of them.
- "There can be no copyright for a photograph of what anyone can otherwise see in a public place", is simply wrong. With few exceptions, all created works have a copyright until it expires. In more than half of all countries an image of any copyrighted work, wherever it is located, infringes on the copyright and is not permitted on Commons. In the United States that is true of all works except architecture.
- There are more than 30,000,000 files on Commons. My best estimate is that more than 1% of them -- 300,000+ files -- should be deleted for one reason or another. If you were to cite some files that you think are similar to this, I would be happy to either tell you why they are OK or add a {{Delete}} tag as required.
- I modify other people's comments only when their formatting does not fit Commons conventions. This makes it easier for all of us to read and understand them. For example, I removed your section head above because there should be only one section head in a DR -- having more than one confuses the various scripts and bots that are used to handle 200+ DRs every day.
- I try very hard to be helpful and constructive, but I will admit that it gets hard when a new user apparently does not read cited policy on a subject, but simply repeats the same incorrect idea.
- . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me)
- Again:
- If my statement is incorrect as you indicate, entirely or otherwise, then why have you not nominated every other uploaded photograph of a public place in The Commons for deletion with the same specious reasoning? The only act that is taking place here, that is in entirety, is your unreasonable hostility! What would happen to Wikipedia if all photographs of a public places were to be in violation of a copyright? There can be no copyright for a photograph of what anyone can otherwise see in a public place. I will also thank you to stop modifying my comments as you have in the above and past. Best wishes! StephenTS42 (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
This mural's photograph was taken in the United States.
"A landmark of South Norwalk is the Donovan Building at 138 Washington Street, corner of Water Street. Built in 1889, it was the home of Jeremiah Donovan‘s Saloon. A civic leader and politician, Jeremiah Donovan served in the state house from 1903 to 1904 and the state senate from 1905 to 1909, and again from 1911 to 1913. He then served a term in the U.S. Congress from 1913 to 1915, and as mayor of Norwalk from 1917 to 1921. The building has since housed a bar/restaurant under various owners, except for the period of prohibition when it was an A. & P. Today the restaurant has a collection of vintage prizefighter pictures that belonged to “Battling Bat Kunz”, a regional champ who owned the restaurant for several decades. The current owner, Richie Ball restored the restaurant and bar in 1979 to its original Victorian style and renamed it after its original founder, Jeremiah Donovan. On the east side of the building is a mural depicting one of the last working schooners on Long Island Sound, the Alice S. Wentworth. It was painted in 1978 by Brechin Morgan, a local artist. After a billboard company painted over it in 1983, Morgan repainted the mural with some friends. It was touched up in 2007." http://historicbuildingsct.com/?p=19095
If something is simply wrong then how can there can be exceptions? If an exception overrules a wrong then the exception is wrong too. Since you have not yet cited any policy then it is simply wrong to imply it wasn't read. Secondly, what is your definition of a 'new user'.
So as to remind you of the published policy of Wikimedia Commons regarding photographs of artwork in public places I submit the following:
1: "2D art (paintings etc.) If the original artwork remains in copyright a license from the artist is nearly always needed. Mere physical ownership of an original artwork such as a painting does not confer ownership of the copyright: that remains with the artist.
There are a few rare situations where the artist's license may not be needed:
Certain images permanently located in a public place, in some countries: See Commons:Freedom of panorama. Graffiti: see Graffiti. Note that graffiti is not the same as murals. If the original artwork is old enough to be in the public domain it is OK to upload a scan or a photocopy (from any source) or a photograph you have taken yourself. A faithful photographic copy of a public domain 2D artwork such as a painting may always be uploaded to Commons, even if the photograph was taken by somebody else and even if no photographer's licence has been provided: see Commons: When to use the PD-Art tag" https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#2D_art_.28paintings_etc..29
3: Choice of law
"The question of what country's law applies in a freedom of panorama case is an unsettled issue. There are several potentially conflicting legal principles, any of which might be used to determine the applicable law (see en:Choice of law). The law used is likely to be one of the following: the country in which the object depicted is situated, the country from which the photograph was taken, or the country in which the photo is used (viewed/sold). Because of the international reach of Commons, ensuring compliance with the laws of all countries in which files are or might be reused is not realistic. Since the question of choice of law with regard to freedom of panorama cases is unsettled, current practice on Commons is to retain photos based on the more lenient of the country in which the object is situated and the country in which the photo is taken. For example, North Korea has a suitable freedom of panorama law, while South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons. As a result of the practice of applying the more lenient law, we would generally retain photos taken from North Korea of buildings in South Korea (e.g., File:Joint Security Area from North Korea.jpg) as well as photos taken from South Korea of buildings in North Korea (e.g., File:070401 Panmunjeom3.jpg)."
Following are the copyright rules in the United States for republishing artwork viewable in a public place:
Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code
Chapter 1
Subject Matter and Scope of Copyright
§ 107 . Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
StephenTS42 (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Much of what you quote above is irrelevant.
- Fair use is never permitted on Commons, see COM:FAIRUSE.
- The exceptions to copyright are minor -- in the USA, they are primarily works by employees of the Federal government and several states. They don't apply here.
- Freedom of Panorama is irrelevant here because there is no FOP for works other than architecture in the USA, the country of origin is the USA and the only law that can apply is USA.
- I would say that anyone with fewer than a hundred edits on Commons is a "new user". You have 42. One of the most fundamental of Commons principles is that there are no circumstances under which we can keep copies of copyrighted works without a license. Since you don't seem to understand that, it seems to me that you qualify regardless of your edit count here.
- You quoted:
- "If the original artwork remains in copyright a license from the artist is nearly always needed. Mere physical ownership of an original artwork such as a painting does not confer ownership of the copyright: that remains with the artist."
- That is exactly on point. The mural may or may not have a copyright. Since we don't know whether there is notice or not (and, now, we don't know whether the mural was repainted after 1989 or if the 2007 touch-ups were substantial enough to create a new copyright), COM:PRP requires deletion. As noted far above, we also don't have a license for the photograph. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please wait until after I obtain permission to use from the artist of the painting/mural!→→StephenTS42 (talk) 01:25, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
- Upon examining other photos found on the web there is a copyright symbol in the lower right hand corner of the painting regarding The Morgan Sign Company which is not readable in this image. Therefore, I apologize and drop my argument and concede to the deletion.→→StephenTS42 (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative work of copyrighted mural. --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 11:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo can't be own or free Bilderling (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- (1) Possible this is PD as derivate work from File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Moscow.svg (with addition trivial elements). --Kaganer (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- (2) This file is re-uploaded in the Russian WP as "Fair Use", see w:ru:Moskomsport-Logo-2015.jpg. --Kaganer (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, unless licensing is clarified. Is this an official document and the {{PD-RU-exempt}} applies? --ChrisiPK (Talk|Contribs) 10:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- IMHO, next item is applicaple - "state symbols and signs (flags, emblems, orders, any forms of money, and the like), as well as symbols and signs of municipal formations;" --Kaganer (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Plaid Cymru Swyddogol (talk · contribs)
[edit]Files taken by different cameras in different places, almost certainly by different people. While the subjects may all be members of the party whose account this purports to be, evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder for each photograph needs to be sent in, following the instructions on COM:OTRS.
- X = possible source listed below
- File:Mabon ap Gwynfor - Clwyd South.jpg X
- File:Mabon ap Gwynfor - Clwyd South Cropped.jpg X
- File:Freddy Greaves - Brecon and Radnorshire (Assembly constituency) Cropped.jpg
- File:Simon Thomas - Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire.jpg X
- File:Simon Thomas - Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire Cropped.jpg X
- File:Rhun ap Iorwerth - Ynys Môn.jpg X
- File:Rhun ap Iorwerth - Ynys Môn Cropped.jpg X
- File:Lindsay Whittle - Caerphilly (Assembly constituency) Cropped.jpg
- File:James R - Bridgend.JPG X
- File:John Osmond - Preseli Pembrokeshire (Assembly constituency).jpg
- File:Freddy Greaves - Brecon & Radnorshire.jpg
- File:Trystan Lewis Aberconwy Cropped.jpg
- File:Trystan Lewis - Aberconwy.jpg
- File:Steffan Lewis - South Wales East.jpg
- File:Sian Gwenllian -Arfon.jpg X
- File:Sian Gwenllian - Arfon Cropped.jpg X
- File:Neil McEvoy - Cardiff West Cropped.jpg
- File:Mair Rowlands - Vale of Clwyd.jpg
- File:Neil McEvoy - Cardiff West.jpg
- File:Mair Rowlands - Vale of Clwyd Cropped.jpg
- File:Lindsay Whittle - Caerphilly (Assembly constituency).jpg
- File:Lyn Ackerman - Islwyn.jpg
- File:Llyr Gruffydd - Clwyd West Cropped.jpg
- File:Llyr Huws Gruffydd - Clwyd West.jpg
- File:Ian Johnson - Vale of Glamorgan.jpg
- File:Helen Mary Jones - Llanelli.jpg
- File:Glyn Wise - Cardiff Central.jpg
- File:Glyn Wise - Cardiff Central Cropped.jpg
- File:Elin Walker Jones - Cardiff North.jpg
- File:Elin Walker Jones - Cardiff North Cropped.jpg
- File:Elin Jones - Ceredigion.jpg
- File:Elin Jones - Ceredigion Cropped.jpg
- File:Dic Jones - Swansea East.jpg
- File:Dic Jones - Swansea East Cropped.jpg
- File:Dai Lloyd - Swansea West.jpg
- File:Dai Lloyd - Swansea West Cropped.jpg
- File:Dafydd Trystan - Cardiff South & Penarth.jpg
- File:Rhayna Pritchard - South East Wales.PNG
- File:PaulRowlinson2.png
- File:Bethan Jenkins -Aberafan Cropped.jpg
_Cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Cropped.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Storkk (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Previous discussion. Storkk (talk) 11:31, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- some possible (but because of missing permission not acceptable) sources:
- -- Common Good (talk) 12:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for holding. Yes, a few of them do look as if they have been taken by tv etc. Just tried to contact their Senior Communications Officer who will come back to me later this afternoon. Thanks. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- File:Elin Walker Jones - Cardiff North.jpg + File:Elin Walker Jones - Cardiff North Cropped.jpg (low res/no exif) --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/14994354403/ (2014, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 by Plaid Cymru -The Party of Wales", high res/exif available), also published at official FB via https://www.facebook.com/PlaidCymruWales/photos/a.10153051058105993.1073741861.26416930992/10153051058760993/?type=1&theater (02.2015)
- File:Ian Johnson - Vale of Glamorgan.jpg --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/16491574645/ (02.2015, per above) + FB https://www.facebook.com/PlaidCymruWales/photos/a.10153051058105993.1073741861.26416930992/10153051059145993/?type=1&theater (02.2015).
- File:Dic Jones - Swansea East.jpg (exif available) + File:Dic Jones - Swansea East Cropped.jpg --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/5221227434/ (2010, per above, identical exif)
- File:John Osmond - Preseli Pembrokeshire (Assembly constituency).jpg --> per exif a copyrighted work by "Copyright By Betina Skovbro Photography", as also stated at https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/15871434223/ (02.2015, per above, credit: "Copyright By Betina Skovbro Photography") + FB https://www.facebook.com/PlaidCymruWales/photos/a.10153051058105993.1073741861.26416930992/10153051059410993/?type=3&theater (02.2015, no credits)
- File:Rhun ap Iorwerth - Ynys Môn.jpg + File:Rhun ap Iorwerth - Ynys Môn Cropped.jpg --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/9185391944/ (2013, per above)
- File:Mair Rowlands - Vale of Clwyd.jpg + File:Mair Rowlands - Vale of Clwyd Cropped.jpg (no exif) --> https://www.flickr.com/photos/plaidcymru/15427856299/ (2014, per above, exif available)
- File:Dafydd Trystan - Cardiff South & Penarth.jpg --> cropped from previously published via (example) http://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/news/13520623.AM_candidate_criticises_those_who_abstained_over_welfare_budget_bill/ (07.2015, ©Copyright 2001-2015) = http://www.penarthtimes.co.uk/resources/images/4058078.jpg (not found on Flickrstream)
- File:Helen Mary Jones - Llanelli.jpg --> cropped from previously published via (example) http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/helen-mary-jones-simon-thomas-9497424 (06.2015, © Media Wales Ltd) = http://i2.walesonline.co.uk/incoming/article5792249.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/helen-mary-jones.jpg or http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/plaid-cymru-chair-helen-mary-5792215 (2013) (not found on Flickrstream)
- File:Simon Thomas - Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire.jpg + File:Simon Thomas - Carmarthen West & South Pembrokeshire Cropped.jpg --> previously published via (example) http://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/news/13463975.Plaid_Cymru_selects_Mid_and_West_regional_list_candidates/ ( ©Copyright 2001-2015) = http://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/resources/images/4020353.jpg (not found on Flickrstream)
- etc.
- Gunnex (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok. They've come back to me with a list of images they would like to delete. They've also sent me 45 new images, which they would like licenced on CCBYSA. How shall I proceed? One at a time as replacements? The 6 they want to delete immediately are: Neil McEvoy, Lyn Ackerman, Dafydd Trystan, Helen Mary, Lindsay Whittle and Rhayna Mann. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Llywelyn2000: I think it would be best if for each of the files they wish to have us keep, as well as for all the new ones, they state who the photographer was and explain how they came to hold the copyright. The procedure for doing so is detailed on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 17:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll email them now, but please delete the 6 image named by Plaid. It'll be next week, now, due to the weekend! Thanks for your patience. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Llywelyn2000:
Done for the first five. For Rhayna Mann, I see a Rhayna Pritchard, but not a Rhayna Mann... Storkk (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Llywelyn2000:
- Thanks! I'll email them now, but please delete the 6 image named by Plaid. It'll be next week, now, due to the weekend! Thanks for your patience. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - permission can be provided via COM:OTRS. --Jcb (talk) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks; 3 email requests were unanswered. However, if they do come back to me with the details as requested, I'll upload the new photos on their behalf. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 08:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paja Jovanović
[edit]These three stamps are the work of Paja Jovanović who died in 1957. The fact that they are stamps does not override the copyright belonging to the artist's heirs.
- File:Monastery Sopocani by Paja Jovanovic 2005 Serbian stamp.jpg
- File:Paja Jovanović 1967 Yugoslavia stamp.jpg
- File:Paja Jovanović 2009 Serbian stamp.jpg
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. It does, otherwise we should delete nearly all recent images of stamps, coins, banknotes and other state-issued payment items (i.e. many thousands of images) right away, as they depict copyrighted artworks, photographs of stamp/coin/banknote designs. This is similar to FoP in a way that a copyrighted work enters PD upon publication by a government in specific form, and the government may do so per laws it adopted (cited in the image template). Materialscientist (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you please give us evidence of your assertion? It seems to me that with a few notable exceptions, our practice is to delete stamps that contain works of art that were not commissioned explicitly for the stamps -- I have been the deleting Admin on several hundred of those, particularly in Germany, over the last several years.
- FOP is very explicitly provided for (or not) in various country's laws. I have never seen a legal cite that shows that if a country puts a work of art on a stamp that somehow the work or the stamp are free of the copyright on the art work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wrote some random ramblings, see below, and then found this statement, which is a better answer. From Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Russia:
- "Article 1.1 of Official Postage Signs and Special Postmarks Regulations .. defines the official postage signs concretely and labels postage stamps, souvenir and miniature sheets, stamped envelopes, and postal stationery cards as the postage signs. Even works still under copyright can be used by the Russian post, without altering the copyright status of the work used. A copyrighted painting can be used on an envelope or such and {{PD-RU-exempt}} will apply, without turning the painting into a Public Domain work. Prerequisite is that the Russian post acquired permission from the copyright-holder."
- (Here come the ramblings) Nearly all stamps are made by a stamp designer based on someone's artwork or photograph, hence it is a derivative work where both parts are copyrightable. It is reasonable to assume that respectable governments abide by their own copyright laws and enter some agreement with all stamp authors. We do not know whether the agreement allows only issue of a stamp by the government printer, or reproduction of its photograph as well - such details are (almost) never made public. Hence we should follow the laws cited in the stamp templates and avoid speculating that some stamps of the same year are copyrighted and some are not. I admit some cited laws are vague, but we have nothing better than that, as we may not apply general copyright laws protecting the photographer/artist - we must include the stamp designer as well and consider the stamp, not the original artwork/photograph. In some cases we have direct confirmations from the authorities (Ecuador, Paraguay) and some stamps contain explicit copyright marks exempting them from the general law (Asian countries like Azerbaijan do that, e.g. [6]). Materialscientist (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- FOP is very explicitly provided for (or not) in various country's laws. I have never seen a legal cite that shows that if a country puts a work of art on a stamp that somehow the work or the stamp are free of the copyright on the art work. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:09, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
![[6]](http://dic.academic.ru/pictures/wiki/files/83/Stamp_of_Azerbaijan_530.jpg){kind=link}
I'm not sure why you included the quote from Russia -- these aren't Russian. Many stamps show original art and in those cases, I would expect the government to be able to release them or not, according to the national copyright law. These, however, show copyrighted art that was not created for the stamps -- rather the stamps honor the artist. There are three possibilities:
- The stamp issuer ignored the artist's copyright and simply used them, assuming that the artist would be honored and not complain.
- The stamp issuer obtained a license for use of the art on the stamps. The usual license for this kind of purpose would be specific, not general, and would not allow the issuer to sub-license.
- The stamp issuer obtained a general license for the art work that covers all uses.
In cases (1) and (2) we are out of luck. Only case (3) would allow us to keep them on Commons.I think that there must be a significant doubt that case (3) applies, hence this DR. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 00:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- I quoted the Russian case because it gives a clear explanation of the general practice in the stamp-issuing field: the government enters some agreement with the artwork author; we don't know details, and they are not essential. Essential is that the government may produce a derivative work (stamp), which is exempted from copyright (in Serbia, in this case, {{PD-SerbiaGov}}), while the original artwork remains copyrighted. The laws covering government work (stamps, coins, banknotes, etc.), if they exist, override general copyright rules by territory, which is why we have Commons:Stamps/Public domain and Commons:Currency pages. Materialscientist (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)