Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/02/28
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
![36 File:Trevor "The Investor Hound" Blond.png](#File:Trevor_"The_Investor_Hound"_Blond.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![56 File:" Si Trouille n'était conté " .jpg](#File:"_Si_Trouille_n'était_conté_"_.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Skifahrerin_1925.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.png){kind=link}
![214 File:סיום 'הדף היומי בהלכה' – היכלי יד אליהו, ד' ניסן תשע"ה..jpg](#File:סיום_'הדף_היומי_בהלכה'_–_היכלי_יד_אליהו,_ד'_ניסן_תשע"ה..jpg){kind=link}
Ignore Please KylieRice (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader claimed fair use and after spotting the mistakes filed a deletion request. --Rillke(q?) 11:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
"Source" section credits a copyrighted TV show and no proof that it was the uploader's "own work." Proud User (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
im sorry for the mistake, I will ask the deletion and replace the picture for a legal license.
mea culpa: my error, i would like the deletion of the picture Kevquebec97 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal shot of likely non-notable persons. Note: Commons is not Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 13:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by David Oropeza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Agency photos
Ytoyoda (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
this is actully a photo of me a frend took a long time ago and i dont want this on the internet 122.151.69.139 04:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Outside of Commons' project scope. Apparently uploaded for use in en:Anton Cabunilas, which has been deleted. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --McZusatz (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
out of scope : vandalism Florn (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation João Justiceiro (talk) 19:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio Grupo Dalcar. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
uploaded by error Lordestopa (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Ellin Beltz: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing - Using VisualFileChange.
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused, personal shot, probably of a minor. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal shot of likely non-notable persons. Note: Commons is not Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused and unusable personal shot of a non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from here, authorship unclear: http://fourcallmemama.blogspot.com/2010/09/beforeafterand-why-ive-been-missing.html Ytoyoda (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Denniss: Mass deletion of pages added by Hemksy8321
Personal image for self promotion. No educational purpose / out of scope. The same is true for the user's 40 other personal images. ProfessorX (talk) 07:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Not too simple for copyright; see COM:TOO. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: As the description mentions, the BumpTop logo is licensed under the Apache license (see the source at GitHub). And yes, seems very simple for me. In doubt, just change the license to {{Apache}}. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Well, the description mentions it now[1]. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Borderline COM:TOO, advanced image yet simple at the same time. In either case, default to the Apache license. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Apache license is acceptable to me and works for users in all jurisditions. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Google Images confirms this *incredibly* widespread across web with dates going way back long before this was uploaded six weeks ago. Web resolution image from single-upload user at en.wikipedia (cross-wiki upload). I'm sure I've seen images in a similar style to this used by Nokia, but regardless of that, it's incredibly unlikely that this *isn't* a copyvio. Ubcule (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Should be this *incredible* file just be transferred to english Wikipedia as Fair use? --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't say the file was "*incredible*". (#) I said it was incredibly (i.e. "very" or "massively") widespread.
- Regarding fair use, that doesn't have a bearing on whether or not it belongs at Commons. Technically, it would be simple enough for me to transfer it (though there's no obligation to do so), but fair use states that:-
- "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created , that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."
- Unless the 6010 was a particularly rare phone, it's likely that someone out there could take a free photo of one, so it doesn't qualify for "fair use".
- (#) BTW, if one wasn't intentionally giving you the benefit of the doubt- and allowing for the fact you're a non-native English speaker- it might be assumed that mimicking someone in this way was an attempt to take the mick.
- Ubcule (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by User:EugeneZelenko. --Riley Huntley (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
No proof of permission Mlpearc (open channel) 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --JuTa 19:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative works of a kind of brochure. Text of questionable notability. Unclear copyright statuts of the images. Very likely out of scope and copyvios
Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Campeonizacopa.jpg
- File:Marcadormantauniversitaro.jpg
- File:Jaime estrada gol.jpg
- File:Estrada titu.jpg
- File:MantaFcviaja 863735831.jpg
- File:4378092 640px.jpg
- File:Ascenso.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Eesti Maaülikooli Spordiklubi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://www.emu.ee/image/Spordihoone/hoone%20pildid/v%C3%A4lisvaated%201.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs. No confidence that these satellite images, google maps, logo or other images are own work of uploader, and instead seem to be promotional in nature.
- File:Logo of Banalakshmi.png
- File:Banabhilla Sat Map.png
- File:Banabhilla Map1.png
- File:Banabhilla Map2.png
- File:Laksmi Sarovar.png
- File:Niranjan Sanyal.png
- File:VUS Registration.png
- File:Niranjan Sannyal.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arun Poudel (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. This gallery consists of images obviously copied from the web, advertisements and packaging. It seems to be some form of vanity gallery or promotionalism based on the repeated use of Chaudhary Group as the unifying theme of the images.
- File:Nabil bank.jpg
- File:Binod K. Chaudhary.jpg
- File:Cg mobile.jpg
- File:Cg industrial park.jpg
- File:Global noodles.jpg
- File:Wai Wai instant noodles.jpg
- File:Chaudhary Group Logo.png
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arun Poudel (talk · contribs)
[edit]EXIF data says the copyright holder and author are not the uploader.
Yann (talk) 12:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Definitely not an own work. — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 04:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work on this small image with no metadata. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Boon Kee Nee (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence that any of these images is own work of uploader. Only one has camera data, the others are of various sizes, focus, white balance, and one looks like it was stamped (perhaps a passport photo).
- File:อะห์หมัด.jpg
- File:Sompong.jpg
- File:อ.ฮัมบาลี เจริญสุข.jpg
- File:ผู้ทรงคุณวุฒิ.jpg
- File:Nurul islam.jpg
- File:Pratchaya.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist is out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jacob.rosen3 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs and promotional uploads, most of the mattress shots are also found on the web, the Moving truck pictures are obviously rescanned from an unnamed source.
- File:Bodycaress.jpg
- File:Bodymotion.jpg
- File:Bodysys.jpg
- File:Bodyessential.jpg
- File:Bodyduet.jpg
- File:Sleep to Live Diagnostics Display 2.jpg
- File:Kingsdown logo.jpg
- File:Kingsdown Moving Truck.jpg
- File:Kingsdown 1904.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal snap out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal snap out of COM:SCOPE, also COM:COPYVIO on tee shirt logo which whoever took the photograph did not create. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laurentdata (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. No confidence that user has the right to license any of these images which seemed culled from internet sources. Five cameras are in action in this series, all of which are promotional in nature.
- File:Photo webcorner novotel.jpg
- File:Webcorner novotel.jpg
- File:Ibis-budget wifi.jpg
- File:Tablette tactile.jpg
- File:Transfert media.jpg
- File:Webcorner ibis.jpg
- File:Portail wifi etaphotel2.jpg
- File:Pullman connectivity.jpg
- File:Ibis forum lille.jpg
- File:Ibis webcorner.jpg
- File:Webcorner passman.jpg
- File:Novotel webcorner.jpg
- File:Ibis webcorner.JPG
- File:Logo passman.jpg
- File:Borne internet passman.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file is from Satellite Technology Research Center(인공위성연구센터), not the user's work. It's copyright violation, So It should be deleted. (Where the source is displayed) Ysjbserver (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Hmmm, the article is of 2016-02, the file is at Commons since 2013-01. Who's the real copyright violator? --Denniss (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is "article" means my delete request? If not, what is it? I'm sorry, but I can't understand what it is.--Ysjbserver (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: File is uploaded 2013-01, original source's date is 2012-09. — regards, Revi 12:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploader requested. New version available under File:SADC road sign R401.svg. Fry1989 eh? 01:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of the project scope Edslov (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploader requsted. New version available under File:SADC road sign R401-600.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploader requested, new version available under File:SADC road sign R402-600.svg. Fry1989 eh? 02:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded purely to vandalize en.Wiki:Richard. Note categories. General Ization (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It is of a person who doesn't want it up anymore. Sambuca11111 (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
![02:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/28#c-Sambuca11111-2016-02-28T02:56:00.000Z-File:Trevor_"The_Investor_Hound"_Blond.png){kind=link}
Deleted: Unused blurry image of man, we have dozens better. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
![18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/28#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-03-06T18:31:00.000Z-File:Trevor_"The_Investor_Hound"_Blond.png){kind=link}
Exceptionally tiny image, and no EXIF; who would create such an image in 2011? Almost certainly taken from a web image, especially as two of the uploader's other four uploads were deleted on copyright grounds. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
This photomontage with pictures of a baby appears out of COM:SCOPE. It is currently unused. In addition, we have here the problem of a background which appears eligible for copyright. AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
according to metadata creator is Photographer, Annica Ögren I99pema (talk) 06:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
copied from http://nyaelementar.stockholm.se I99pema (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks as if had been published before somewhere else. I guess it might infringe copy rights. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks as if this is a CD cover. If so, it might infrige the copy rights of the original photogragpher. NearEMPTiness (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The images used for the collage are copyrighted / screenshots from movies. For example, 1, 2, 3, Creating a collage of copyrighted images doesn't make one the copyright owner of the collage. Utcursch (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Muhammad Rafdillah (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal images. One is used in a user page and user page images are indeed allowed for contributors. However contributor, he is not, as all his contributions to the wikimedia projects were to upload these images and to create the user page. This is not Facebook.
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marcos.ferreira145 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Spam (w:Special:DeletedContributions/Marcos.ferreira145).
- File:Logo-Au Pair small 500px.jpg
- File:Connect China Au Pair Logo.jpg
- File:Connect China Study Abroad Logo.jpg
- File:Connect China Trade Logo.jpg
- File:Connect China Logo.jpg
- File:Connect China logo.jpg
MER-C 09:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Images seem to have been copied from the internet. Probable copyright violations.
- File:Chanatip Songkrasin.jpg.jpg
- File:Lan Cheng Lung.jpg.jpg
- File:BKFC.png
- File:Info o sajte.jpg
- File:Thierry n.jpg
- File:Keo Sokpheng n.jpg
- File:Laboravy n.jpg
- File:Um sereyroth.n.jpg
- File:Prak Monyoudom n.jpg
Takeaway (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
possible copyright violation. Maybe taken from [2] ProfessorX (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Incorrect metadata DDujany (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted image grabbed from http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/images/large/4485/BMW-Z4-GT3_3.jpg MC12GT1 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
COM:DW Thibaut120094 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Let’s keep it. It’s an illustrative portrayal within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. §§ 101[3] and 102.[4] LLarson (talk) 05:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete obvious copyvio. LLarson I don't see anything in this articles that could prevent this file deletion. Even if this file would be free in the US, it's clearly not free in France (and both are required for Commons). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Il faut m’excuser. I’m sorry but I’m not familiar with French copyright law. —LLarson (said & done) 13:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- LLarson no need to apologize, even as a French citizen and Commons sysop, the French copyright law still surprise me from time to time. I'm not a specialist of the US copyright law either, could you explain how and why it would be free in US ? Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:24, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
- Il faut m’excuser. I’m sorry but I’m not familiar with French copyright law. —LLarson (said & done) 13:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unlikely own work. Has been on other websites in larger resolution (http://www.caffecinema.com/new/index.php/cinema/item/7477-%D8%AA%D8%AD%D9%84%DB%8C%D9%84-%DB%8C%DA%A9-%D8%B1%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%87-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B4%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%85%D9%87%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%82%DB%8C%D9%84%DB%8C-%D8%AA%D8%A7-%D8%AD%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%AF-%DA%AF%D9%88%D8%AF%D8%B1%D8%B2%DB%8C%D8%8C-%DA%86%D9%87%D8%B1%D9%87%E2%80%8C%D9%87%D8%A7%DB%8C%DB%8C-%D8%A7%D8%B2-%D8%B3%DB%8C%D9%86%D9%85%D8%A7%DB%8C-%D8%A7%DB%8C%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%DA%A9%D9%87-%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%87-%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%AF%D9%86%D8%AF-%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%B1-%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7-%DA%86%DB%8C%D8%B3%D8%AA%D8%9F.html) 88.77.0.84 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be taken from this 2010 blog post: http://viaggi-cucina-e-io.blogspot.com/2010/12/sicilia-2010-vittoria-e-comiso.html Ytoyoda (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution among many copyright violations. I suspect copyvio here also. Taivo (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- also derivative work file:Rajesh Bhatt (cropped).jpg
Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:06, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The artiste died in 1975, so it's a copyvio. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
No proof of authorization. Photographer unidentified. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
![12:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/28#c-TwoWings-2016-02-28T12:37:00.000Z-File:"_Si_Trouille_n'était_conté_"_.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
![18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/02/28#c-Ellin_Beltz-2016-03-06T18:44:00.000Z-File:"_Si_Trouille_n'était_conté_"_.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Pedromassacesi (talk · contribs)
[edit]User has uploaded several copyvio photos, unlikely that other photos have valid license.
- File:Vecchio 8.jpg
- File:Vecchio 6.jpg
- File:Vecchio 7.jpg
- File:Vecchio 1.jpg
- File:Messi y Vecchio.jpg
- File:Messi Vecchio.jpg
- File:Ernesto Vecchio 10.jpg
- File:Pablo0013.jpg
- File:Pablo0011.jpg
- File:Pablo0010.jpg
- File:Pablo0009.jpg
- File:Pablo0008.jpg
- File:Pablo0007.jpg
- File:Pablo0006.jpg
- File:Pablo0005.jpg
- File:Pablo0003.jpg
- File:Pablo0002.jpg
- File:Pablo y Masche.jpg
- File:Pablo0012.jpg
- File:Vecchio 9.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo includes a large screen showing a video which would be copyright and the photographer cannot license that part. Cropping it out would not be an option because it is central to the photo. FredWalsh (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
- also file:Andrew McCarter (8216536634).jpg
This is notability question. Andrew McCarter is not mentioned in en.wiki, maybe he is a non-notabile person. Taivo (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC) - Keep Nothing wrong with this image (i.e. if it were in use at any WMF project, nobody would advocate deletion), and it's a good example of celebrity photography, even if the subject isn't that much of a celebrity. Good examples of this type of photography are hard to come by (it's hard to get such images unless you're a professional, and they typically don't give free licenses for their work), so COM:SCOPE shouldn't be an issue here. Nyttend (talk) 05:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I worked yesterday in category:Photographs by Eva Rinaldi: more than 20 000 photos, most of them about celebrities, so "good example of celebrity photograph" should not be an issue here. But, yes, if it were in use at any WMF project, nobody would advocate deletion. Taivo (talk) 09:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Taivo this guy looks familiar to me, could have sworn I have seen him on Aussie TV somewhere. The name may be incorrect which is preventing find out who he is exactly. ɐiʌɐssnɹ (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
I highly doubt that all logos are PD-US/PD-gov, or did I miss anyting? mabdul 19:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Deleted -FASTILY 07:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
This is a photograph of a statue, and is a derivative work. The statue is still under copyright. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Partners Statue at Magic Kingdom. Whpq (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Statue under US copyright, no permission. See also w:Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2016_February_28#Partners_.28statue.29 czar 17:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/Draft:Mr1China.com). MER-C 13:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 13:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio. Works by Clovis Trouille, who died less than 70 years ago TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Camille Clovis Trouille, né le 24 octobre 1889, à La Fère (Aisne), et mort le 24 septembre 1975. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Pershing 1 (25 January 1961).png 21lima (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
- Keep: This file is older, so impossible to be duplicate. Also, this file is in use, have different cobrightness, but is smaller. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The image was from a U.S. Federal government source so it doesn't matter which of the uploads was older. The one retained was much larger and higher quality than the one deleted. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
unusedpersonal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal Sakhalinio (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope : holiday picture. Also disturbing composition, it can't be useful. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope : unuseful without more accurate title/description/categories. Most of the image is out of focus, it is even not a good image of an unidentified plant. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope personal image. It is used in a user page and user page images are indeed allowed for contributors. However contributor, he is not, as all his contributions to the wikimedia projects were to upload this image and to create user pages. This is not Facebook. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Apparently a joke. Takeaway (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Harsheroz2016 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images taken from http://www.ishafoodcourt.com/. Copyright violation and/or promotional.
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 08.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 07.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 06.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 05.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 04.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 02.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 03.jpg
- File:Tiffin Isha Foodcourt - www.ishafoodcourt.com 01.png
Takeaway (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Onsongotitus (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copied from the internet. Images of unknown copyright status.
Takeaway (talk) 20:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Captain-tucker (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A personal photo, not used. Maybe not notable person. Kulmalukko (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It is now being used on the uploader's user page on Ukrainian Wikipedia. Customarily we allow users to upload a very small number of such photos. If the user has no further activity over the next year or so, we can reconsider this DR. Green Giant (talk) 00:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Flickr user cannot license the copyright poster that is a focal point here. Cropping it or blanking it would simply draw attention to it. FredWalsh (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Flickr user cannot license the copyright poster that is a focal point here. Cropping it or blanking it would simply draw attention to it. FredWalsh (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of project scope. Used in deleted attack page. JohnCD (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be useful Takeaway (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Not educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope. Not educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 05:33, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too small to be educationally useful. Takeaway (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This is not free in the US. It entered the public domain in China (2004) after the URAA date (1996 or 2002). See Template:PD-1996. Jolly Janner (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep @Jolly Janner: Does the person in the picture look like a 76-year-old to you? The photo was obviously not taken in 1964, but much earlier, when he was around 30, or at most 40, years old, i.e., 1920s or earlier, and therefore covered by PD-1996. The source website says it's from his early life, although no specific date is given. @Kingoflettuce: Please label your uploads more accurately in the future. -Zanhe (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as the source apparently says its from his "early life". I believe the oldest he could be without breaking the URAA date would be 58, so this gives adequate evidence. Zanhe has since modified the file to include this information as well. Jolly Janner (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per Zanhe's suggestion. Green Giant (talk) 00:01, 7 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) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. --Yasu (talk) 14:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted by WBF. Compare http://wbf.com.pl/albums/244444/thumb_wbfglam0914r_27.jpg WTM (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Speedied blatant copyvio.--KTo288 (talk) 06:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Not a free file. I99pema (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, please give evidence for own work and the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
No verifiable source, likely to be flickr-washing. Sealle (talk) 09:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also the licensereview template is questionable. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:DeletedContributions/Kartikeyjain1993). MER-C 09:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, also above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo / graphic stated as 'own work'. No usage on Wikimedia projects. No obvious educational use therefore out of Commons:Project scope. mattbr 15:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 01:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
unnecessary redirect Kopiersperre (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Possible COM:COPYVIO: copyrighted work with no permission. KurodaSho (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Scope. No encyclopaedic use. Dandelo (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 10:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: blurred and small size with no EXIF. Non-notable person's personal photo or unused {{User page image}}. KurodaSho (talk) 10:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Interior views of St. Heinrich church in Bamberg
[edit]- File:Bamberg st.heinrich innenvorne2592x1944 mr.JPG
- File:Bamberg st.heinrich innenchor1944x2592 mr.JPG
- File:Bamberg st.heinrich innenhinten2592x1944 mr.JPG
- File:Sankt-Heinrich-Bamberg-P2137486hdr.jpg
- File:Sankt-Heinrich-Bamberg-P2137491hdr.jpg
- File:Sankt-Heinrich-pipe-organ-Bamberg-P2137496hdrPS.jpg
The architect of the church, Michael Kurz, died in 1957, so his work will become public domain in 2028. Since we have no FoP for interiors of buildings in Germany, these files should be deleted (although it's certainly a pity especially concerning the photos taken by Ermell which are of very high quality). --Code (talk) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- These pictures are just inner views of a church, not an artwork. Especially the organ is an objekt of utility. So we can keep them! --Orgelputzer (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:William Tetly (physicist)
[edit]Very small images with no exif data, uploaded along with a hoax image of a non-existent physicist for a hoax article on Portuguese wikipedia. See Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:William Tetly (physicist). Very likely copyrighted images, not created up uploader.
Themightyquill (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete --Achim (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:49, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
out of scope (no educational purpose) + blurry Kopiersperre (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This is the official logo for RISC Takers FC (see the organization's official website), and I am not convinced that one individual can release the image under CC-BY-SA. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no evidence it's free. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
This map would probably be more educational without the big black box over most of it. I'm not too sure why this was made this way, but there is a base SVG file which contains the accurate information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, corrupted file. --Yasu (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, sole upload Pibwl (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Logo was deleted some times ago because of copyright violation because of the Justicialist party log, same situation as here [5] Sfs90 (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Partido-justicialista-312536.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation (copyright statement clearly on the image) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Please note that two other images by the same uploader are also nominated for deletion: Mch Mosque Ghat.jpg as seemingly intended to cause offence, and Mch Ferry Boat.jpg for flagrant misrepresentation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Túrelio. --Riley Huntley (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Swiss-American artist Herbert Matter died in 1984, see Wikipedia article. This Engelberg tourism poster must be an early Swiss work by Matter (who was born in Engelberg), and so protected by copyright in Switzerland as its country of origin for 70 years after the author's death, until 2054. There's also a WW II US poster by Matter on Commons, which I'm not including in this request, as it's PD-USGov and not a work from Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
,_Skifahrerin_1925.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_Skifahrerin_1925.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Swiss-American artist Herbert Matter died in 1984, see Wikipedia article. This Engelberg tourism poster must be an early Swiss work by Matter (who was born in Engelberg), and so protected by copyright in Switzerland as its country of origin for 70 years after the author's death, until 2054. There's also a WW II US poster by Matter on Commons, which I'm not including in this request, as it's PD-USGov and not a work from Switzerland. Gestumblindi (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
,_Skifahrerin_1925.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
,_Skifahrerin_1925.jpg){kind=link}
This picture is not Agneshm's own work – he/she only scanned an old postcard. As the copyright holder of this postcard photo is unknown, and this postcard isn't older than 100 years, this picture should be deleted. HH58 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by M Waqas Jal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope personal images. One is used in a user page and user page images are indeed allowed for contributors. However contributor, he is not, as all his contributions to the wikimedia projects were to upload these images and to create the user page. This is not Facebook.
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; en-wiki user page tagged for speedy deletion as well. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope : unused personal image Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 1950 painting, we need a permission from the author via OTRS Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work of a 1950 painting, we need a permission from the author via OTRS Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farida Hza (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope : unused personal images / no quite notable peoples
- File:M bouzid.jpg
- File:Les profs de Hasnaoui AMeur.jpg
- File:Les prof sous la neige.jpg
- File:Neige au cem.jpg
- File:Équipe hasnaoui ameur.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope : unused personal images
Christian Ferrer (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:48, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Snehahurrain (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata, the nature of several of the images, watermarks, and the uploader's history.
- Watermarked posters
- Postage stamps
- Photo portraits
- Building photo
—LX (talk, contribs) 09:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete the only image for which I AGF is the building photo because it actually has believable matadata. As far as I know Pakistan stamps are copyright for 50 years and Indian stamps are definitely copyright for 60 years, one issued in 2012 and the other in 1990, need to go. The first two portraits might be old enough if real sources were provided but the 3rd subject was only born in 1977 (used in a multiple- declined draft) and the same image, though cropped closer, is found on his linkedIn page without any evidence of permission. Ww2censor (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Note that instead of commenting here, the uploader has chosen to continue to upload blatant copyright violations with fraudulent authorship claims. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:27, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Snehahurrain (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, and the uploader's history.
—LX (talk, contribs) 08:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Snehahurrain (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims based on the low/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent metadata, and the uploader's history.
—LX (talk, contribs) 13:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 17:21, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Surely no own work of the uploader; registered trademark of the "Pfadfinder und Pfadfinderinnen Österreichs", may only be used with permission of the owner [6]. Jergen (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Tiny image without metadata, is found many times in Internet, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Probably not own work as claimed, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 11:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Self-promo spam only, no longer in use. Commons and Wikipedia are not your personal webspace.
(#) Formerly in use at sk.wikipedia with negligible spam blurb, now taken out of use.
Ubcule (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Fête des Lumières: art copyvio => no FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 14:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This photograph is a derivative work of the depicted, copyrighted Pokémon cards. It is high-resolution so the character art can be clearly seen for many of the individual Pokémon, in addition to the central card's pokéball image and logo. Usage of the copyrighted elements is not de minimis because the whole point of the image is to depict Pokémon cards. BethNaught (talk) 14:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It is a photograph of several hundred fragments of Pokémon images, with very few complete graphics. The image was illustrating concept of collection for Commons:Photo challenge/2015 - June - Collections, Collecting and Collectables. I agree that each graphics is likely copyrighted, but each one of them takes only tiny fraction of the whole image, so unless you start cropping or zooming-in none of the individual cards are clearly visible. The large cards are upside down so only a simple ball on the back is visible. The image seems to me to be within the bounds of Commons:De_minimis, like Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Banners CIMG0256.jpg or Commons:Deletion requests/File:Museu Valencia de la Il·lustració i la Modernitat, interior.JPG. --Jarekt (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I profoundly disagree that the image meets COM:DM. I will highlight quotes from it to explain why.
- If the poster forms an essential part of the overall photographic composition, or if the photograph was taken deliberately to include the poster, there is likely to be copyright infringement: this image was taken with the purpose of illustrating collections, yes, but more specifically of playing card collections. The whole image is clearly devoted to depicting the copyrighted works.
- If the existence of the poster makes the image more attractive, more usable, or liable to cause more than insignificant economic damage to the copyright owner, then a de minimis defence to a copyright-infringement action will probably fail: this image could not exist without the Pokémon cards because they are the point of it.
- A useful test may be to ask whether the photograph would be as good or as useful if the poster were to be masked out: if all the copyrighted designs were blurred in this image, it would be little more than a collection of blobs. This ties in with DM's "Category 7, definitely not de minimis", defined Copyrighted work X is the central part of the subject (eg it is the reason for taking the photo). Removing it would make the derivative work useless.
- The quotes refer to the example of a poster in a streetscape, but this carries over reasonably well.
- Each of the graphics is definitely copyrighted; for it not to be would be nonsensical. Moreover there is still a large number of visible character graphics. Looking near the middle, I can clearly see depictions of, inter alia, Sneasel, Beedrill, Lickitung, Staryu, Venipede, Swanna, Inkay, Onix, Simisear and Vanillite, not to mention the XL Charizard card and the various power-up and special move (AFAICT, I never played Pokémon) cards.
- The examples of other DRs you cite have serious differences to this one. In each, there was the reasonable interpretation that the photos also demonstrated the architecture, but the non-free works unavoidably got in the way of that purpose. Here, they are the purpose. I reject the argument that such a large-scale use of non-free works is legitimised by the idea of illustrating collections, particularly when the competition gallery you link to lists several images of free objects, although there are several other images in it I find concerning. BethNaught (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment / Weak Keep: Ars Technica viewers, what up fam! So as sad as the shit sounds, it's probably not a safe call to host full-size on Wikipedia - even though Nintendo would likely not sue over it. It's not just a copyrighted work, but a collage, and at that resolution it's fairly easy to duplicate. I would keep the resized revisions: I was not able to view the full-size image in Firefox (works in other browsers). Also, anyone notice that there are YuGiOh cards in there too? Lmao, nigga. Weak keep, would go stronger for a lower-res image. Ellomate (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: As per discussion at a reduced size. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Derivative work of copyrighted Pokémon characters and logo. BethNaught (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:19, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Adrián Rodríguez Torres (talk · contribs)
[edit]2 images out of scope : unused personal images / no quite notable peoples. 1 complex logo without permission, scope also questionable
Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuel Balarezo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Official symbols. If they are in public domain, proper reason should be stated.
- File:Puno región Perú.png
- File:Piura región Perú.png
- File:Escudo San Martín Perú.png
- File:Escudo Región Cajamarca Perú.png
- File:Escudo Áncash Perú.png
- File:Escudo de Sullana.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:20, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation Ppntori (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:21, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:22, 25 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) 15:51, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical drawing. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Daston Corporation Spain (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 25 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) 15:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Աշխարհագրական պատճառականության փոխակերպումը և աշխարհաքաղաքական պատճառականության արդի ըմբռնումները.pdf
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Antonio Rosales Vargas (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Revisionismo de Hoxha y el Pensamiento Mao Tsetung.pdf
- File:El Antimarxismo Estucturalista de Althusser.pdf
- File:Chou En-Lai, revisionista.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from music. Out of Commons:Project scope. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 25 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) 16:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 25 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) 16:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
i have to retry Dispolt (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nisetpdajsankha (talk · contribs)
[edit]It is unlikely that the uploader created these black and white images, they seem instead to be part of some historical document or display, but without additional information all that is obvious is that they're not own work as claimed.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Corriejunior (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs, album covers, promotional photographs of a band "Masterpiece" all uploaded for obvious promotional purposes.
- File:Masterpiece Live in Sibu, Sarawak.jpg
- File:Masterpiece live in Sibu 2014.jpg
- File:Masterpiece after a concert in Sibu during the Borneo Cultural Festival (2015).jpg
- File:Masterpiece Logo.jpg
- File:Mastepriece Merindang Ke Bintang album cover.jpg
- File:Masterpiece Rock & Roll album cover.jpg
- File:Ngap Sayot album cover.jpg
- File:Masterpiece Live in Aramaite Frenz Club Kuala Lumpur.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Ellin Beltz, not sure if I'm replying you on the right box as of now. Appreciate if you can help me to extend the duration of the existing photos to be in the article until I get a better sources. I will try to look and improvise my knowledge on this part. Please advise if I can re-upload a different version of each photo and change the details, source, license etc. Thank you Ellin and wish you have a nice day ahead. Corriejunior (talk) 08:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- If you didn't have a source for them when you got them, why did you upload as own work? Please do not reupload images, that could result in your account being blocked. It is not possible to free-host (c) images on Commons. If at some point in the future COM:OTRS valid permission is received, the images can be restored by the OTRS administrator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:47, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Motopark (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Corriejunior (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo images, and small images without EXIF data. Please send a permission via COM:OTRS, or upload the original files.
- File:Masterpiece in Miri.jpg
- File:Masterpiece 2017.jpg
- File:Rocktoberfest Borneo stage.jpg
- File:Watt Marcus in 2011.jpg
- File:Harold Vincent in 2011.jpg
- File:Kennedy Edwin.jpg
- File:Masterpiece AMD 2014.jpg
- File:Masterpiece (band).jpg
- File:Masterpiece band 2015.jpg
- File:Masterpiece band 2014.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
copyvio http://quipu.com.ar/shop/img/m/60-autores-list.jpg Esprit Fugace (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and found at http://www.taringa.net/comunidades/lastaringueras/4012658/10-mujeres-argentinas-escritoras.html. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No source of base map. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Do our policies require sources even if the content is not copyrightable? This map appears to be too simple to be copyrightable. Rybkovich (talk) 21:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and copyvio of https://amemminnesota.org/join-amem/. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alaa Alnuaimi (talk · contribs)
[edit]No confidence in own work of uploader. Not a selfie, variably sized, two repeats, looks more promotional than educational.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Agree with nom; dubious own work. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:40, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - and found at https://www.zhinsta.com/following/468541011/. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
1945 painting is not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
No confidence that this is a 2016 image or the own work of the uploader, it looks older and halftoned as if scanned from a book. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and copyvio of http://www.model-making.eu/products/NKL-16-41-Aerosan.html. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:37, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
It is highly unlikely that this volcano-cam sequence is own work of uploader, more likely that the information at the bottom shows true copyright holder. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The correct author of this gif is INETER. At its website there is a function that is generate a gif with the latest images of the volcano.--Byralaal (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- At http://www.ineter.gob.ni/, I see a (C) symbol on the bottom of the page, any suggestions where we might find this image freely licensed? Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:38, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Under the rules of Commons, collage images must be uploaded separately, each with proper source and license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
This image does not appear to be own work of uploader but copied from some unnamed source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Doodle art by non-notable artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 23:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Apparently the same image as File:Vue presque ile.jpg. The latter is in use. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate, improperly named. --Yasu (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
elf kopien Zause01 10:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion given. --Krd 14:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This highly pixelated image is very unlikely to be own work of uploader due to dreadful quality, small size and fanboy subject matter. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chinar2011 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. No confidence that any of these photos, documents, coins, advertisements, air photo, and so on were created by uploader; instead they look more like a collection of images from the internet with the possibility of a few family snaps thrown in. Notice many pictures of Facebook size (720x)
- File:Халид с братом и зятем.jpg
- File:Халид Мурачуев с сестрой и братом при поступлении в вуз в Ульяновске.jpg
- File:Халид Мурачуев у себя во дворе..jpg
File:Переселенческий билет Бариевой Айшат.jpg- {{PD-RU-exempt}}- File:Джавид Гамзатов.jpeg
- File:Анклух.jpeg
- File:Указ.jpg
- File:Chinar.jpg
- File:Школа в селе Чаравали.jpg
- File:Въездная дорога в село.jpg
- File:Дербентский тоннель.jpg
- File:Улица Гусаева в Чинаре.jpg
- File:Банкетный зал Чинар.jpg
- File:Метрика.jpg
- File:Ватан.png
- File:Новое дело.png
- File:Ассалам.png
- File:Авоська.jpeg
- File:Копильник.jpeg
- File:Газета.jpeg
- File:Клятва пионера.jpeg
- File:Тетрадь.jpeg
- File:Село Мугарты.jpeg
- File:Салик.jpeg
- File:Алексинский.jpg
- File:Гаджиев М. М..jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- I've withdrawed File:Переселенческий билет Бариевой Айшат.jpg as {{PD-RU-exempt}} because it is official document --Butko (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted the company (non-governmental) documents. For the photographs above, the original photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. I've kept the logos that appear extremely simple, and changed their license to {{PD-textlogo}}. I have split out File:Метрика.jpg into its own DR, and File:Указ.jpg, which is a redirect, into its own. --Storkk (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
This picture is not Agneshm's own work – he/she only scanned an old photo. As the copyright holder of this photo is unknown, and this photo isn't older than 100 years, this picture should be deleted. HH58 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This picture is not Agneshm's own work – he/she only scanned an old postcard. As the copyright holder of this postcard photo is unknown, and this postcard isn't older than 100 years, this picture should be deleted. HH58 (talk) 04:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Morio as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Possible copyright violation: The filming day of a Formula One team permits very limited people to enter the circuit. This picture is too perfectly prepared to shoot. If the author is a professional photographer, it is necessary to be supplied enough information about the permission of use.. Very big photo, but no metadata exists. This is the uploader's only contribution. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment I appreciate your help!--Morio (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Porque eu coloquei a foto errada Valdir do Nascimento IV (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Grabbed & cropped from (example) https://www.facebook.com/diocesejatai/photos/a.773713656091672.1073741829.773703692759335/785380164925021/?type=3&theater (01.2016)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality image, better versions abound in commons Poliocretes (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality image, better versions abound in commons Poliocretes (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
unused, no realistic educational use (abandoned wikiversity?). Same for the only other upload File:AgingBeef day02.JPG Pibwl (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope promo Pibwl (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
CC0 1.0 is not declared on website. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I was told by the owner of the castle that taking photographs was prohibited there. As the photographer of this picture I therefore ask for a deletion. The picture is not in use and I'm not interested in having legal trouble with the owner of the site. Code (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
outdated & fully replaced by File:US unemployment rate under President Obama.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ezarateesteban 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
private, without encyclopdic worth Kürschner (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: It is in use so in scope. --Ezarateesteban 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Vojtěch Dostál as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: potentially defamatory, also out of scope. Once the file survived regular deletion request, so it is not speedily deleted. Taivo (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete not in use any more, defamatory --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Stained glass windows of St. Stephan in Mainz
[edit]- File:Mainz St. Stephan BW 2012-08-18 09-29-06.jpg
- File:Mainz St. Stephan BW 2012-08-18 09-29-53.jpg
- File:Mainz St. Stephan BW 2012-08-18 09-30-12.jpg
- File:Mainz St. Stephan BW 2012-08-18 10-21-38.jpg
- File:Stefansstraße 9 Katholische Pfarrkirche St Stefan innenraum.jpg
- File:Mainz-Stephanuskirche-Chagall-Chorfenster-b.jpg
- File:Mainz St. Stephan BW 2012-08-18 10-21-51.jpg
- File:KlausMayer+St-Stephan-2015.jpg
- File:Klaus-Mayer+St-Stephan-2015-b.jpg
The stained glass windows are the work of Marc Chagall who died in 1985 (see here for details). His work will become public domain in 2056. As we have no FoP inside buildings in Germany, the pictures should be deleted. --Code (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The following photographs do not have the stained glass of Marc Chagall as its subject. the top two give a general overview of the interior architecture. they happen to have the stained glass in the picture, just like it has church pews and posters with tourist information in them. The bottom two are portraits of a person giving a lecture (as the actual name of the file already indicates).
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.132.207 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 29 Feb 2016 (UTC)
- This picture are just inner view of a church in use, not an artwork. So we can keep it! --Orgelputzer (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Those with a focus on the stained glass windows have been deleted. For the other ones the stain glass windows are not the main subject and the exact artwork on the panels is barely visible (only vague colors from a distance). --Basvb (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
No proof of authorization. Photographer unidentified. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 12:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: own work unlikely. --Basvb (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Inferior duplicate (with watermark) of File:North Western Operational Command insignia.png Kges1901 (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --Laber□T 15:05, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: In use. --Basvb (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
inferior to File:North Western Operational Command insignia.png, with watermark, no more in use PsichoPuzo (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --lNeverCry 00:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Der Rationalist as Copyvio (copyvio). No reason or source provided for copyvio, old picture. Amitie 10g (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Potential source of copyright vio; http://poliskasich.org.ua/?p=638. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: given the age the own work claim is very unlikely. --Basvb (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Der Rationalist as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://news.tut.by/society/97480.html Amitie 10g (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal snaps are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep within scope as its documenting a Wikimedia Australia event, one of the people in the photograph is a well known Wikimedian who was visiting Australia to give presentations on the WMF project known as w:Wikidata . For the record I'm the current President of WMAU and was involved in the organisation of the event. Gnangarra 12:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Basvb (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
(c) logo at source, https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ooc/news-releases/Pages/update-avian-influenza-april-29.aspx - certainly not own work. Clarification of source and license is needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is an obvious case of PD-shape and text. The (c) on the website does not and can not legally apply to images within that hold their own respective copyrights. Fry1989 eh? 18:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Yup, but it's not own work, and files need accurate sources, not just inaccurate claims of ownership. Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Then change the license, don't nominate it for deletion under a copyright rationale. Fry1989 eh? 22:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Proper source is still needed, but no copyvio according to the US Copyright Law. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Neutral @Ellin Beltz: Solved? Diff. Riley Huntley (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Valid issues have now been resolved. --Basvb (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, as well as the other upload File:NamanMChaudhary.jpg Pibwl (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
One of the two focal points of this photo is the perfume advert but Eva Rinaldi, the Flickr user whose stream this is from, is not the copyright holder for the advert. FredWalsh (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
background color gradient issue X-Javier (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 16:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete This image is File:AUG A1 508mm 04.jpg left and right inverted. -- 木の枝(talk) 2016.2.29 0:57 (JST)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as there ara no EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's ridiculous to delete an image because it has no EXIF data. Where is that Wikipedia policy? There are plenty of reasons why - it might be a scan of a picture taken with film.182.240.2.108 09:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Not a very suspect image. If missing exif data on its own is a reason to delete files community consensus should be reached and millions of files deleted. --Basvb (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Wrong name and description. There is the file "Harîrî Schefer - BNF Ar5847 f.51.jpg" with correct description and better resolution. Дзяніс Тутэйшы (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use. --Basvb (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tapiaobiang (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: low resolution, not educational personal photos. File names and descriptions provide us less information to store Commons.
- File:Sofi.jpg
- File:Obian 10.jpg
- File:Obian 09.jpg
- File:Obian 08.jpg
- File:Obian 07.jpg
- File:Obian 06.jpg
- File:Obian 05.jpg
- File:Obian 04.jpg
- File:Obian 03.jpg
- File:Obian 02.jpg
- File:Obiang 42.jpg
- File:Obiang 41.jpg
- File:Obiang 40.JPG
- File:Obiang 39.JPG
- File:Obiang 38.JPG
- File:Obiang 37.JPG
- File:Obiang 36.JPG
- File:Obiang 35.JPG
- File:Obiang 34.JPG
- File:Obiang 33.JPG
- File:Obiang 32.JPG
- File:Obiang 31.JPG
- File:Obiang 30.JPG
- File:Obiang 29.jpg
- File:Obiang 28.jpg
- File:Obiang 27.jpg
- File:Obiang 26.jpg
- File:Obiang 24.jpg
- File:Obiang 23.jpg
- File:Obiang 21.jpg
- File:Obiang 22.jpg
- File:Obiang 20.jpg
- File:Obiang 19.jpg
- File:Obiang 18.jpg
- File:Obiang 17.jpg
- File:Obiang 10.jpg
- File:Obiang 07.jpg
- File:Obiang 08.jpg
- File:Obiang 06.jpg
- File:Obiang 05.jpg
- File:Obiang 04.jpg
- File:Obiang 02.jpg
- File:Obiang 03.jpg
- File:Obiang 01.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 38.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 37.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 36.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 35.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 34.jpg<- this one is worth keeping.
- File:Tapiaobiang 33.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 31.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 32.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 30.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 29.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 28.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 27.jpg<- this one is worth keeping.
- File:Tapiaobiang 26.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 25.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 24.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 23.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 22.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 21.jpg<- this one is worth keeping.
- File:Tapiaobiang 20.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 19.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 18.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 17.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 16.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 15.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 14.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 13.jpg<-this one is worth keeping.
- File:Tapiaobiang 12.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 11.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 10.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 09.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 07.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 08.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 06.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 05.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 04.jpg<- this one is worth keeping.
- File:Tapiaobiang 03.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 02.jpg
- File:Tapiaobiang 01.jpg
KurodaSho (talk) 11:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Don’t delete all of them. Some are worth keeping. Often someone looks for public domain pictures of people to illustrate something, even if they aren’t notable persons or if they are unidentified. Why shouldn’t someone load up pictures if himself so that others can use them for any purposes without thinking about permission? --ProfessorX (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all... The non-controversial ones have already been deleted, but I'm having a hard time picturing a realistic educational usage case for any of the ones remaining... Storkk (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I fail to see the educational use of the remaining 5 images and thus have deleted the last 5. --Basvb (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as there are no EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Basvb (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Author requested. Did not curate before uploading Elisfkc (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
DR started to verify claimed 'own work'; see also File:High c.jpg and File:Durbar hall.jpg, Roland zh (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please use one combined nomination for these images if this user has a problematic past of uploading incorrect images and try to find one or two on another location on the internet to source suspissions, the current argumentation and research does not give me enough doubt to delete, although there is definiatly some doubt. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work'; see also File:High c.jpg, File:Durbar hall.jpg, File:Vallar pada.jpg ..., Roland zh (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please use one combined nomination for these images if this user has a problematic past of uploading incorrect images and try to find one or two on another location on the internet to source suspissions, the current argumentation and research does not give me enough doubt to delete, although there is definiatly some doubt. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work'; see also File:High c.jpg, File:Durbar hall.jpg, File:Vallar pada.jpg ..., Roland zh (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please use one combined nomination for these images if this user has a problematic past of uploading incorrect images and try to find one or two on another location on the internet to source suspissions, the current argumentation and research does not give me enough doubt to delete, although there is definiatly some doubt. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable Motopark (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work'; see also File:High c.jpg, File:Durbar hall.jpg, File:Vallar pada.jpg ..., Roland zh (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please use one combined nomination for these images if this user has a problematic past of uploading incorrect images and try to find one or two on another location on the internet to source suspissions, the current argumentation and research does not give me enough doubt to delete, although there is definiatly some doubt. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work'; see also File:High c.jpg, File:Durbar hall.jpg, File:Vallar pada.jpg ..., Roland zh (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Please use one combined nomination for these images if this user has a problematic past of uploading incorrect images and try to find one or two on another location on the internet to source suspissions, the current argumentation and research does not give me enough doubt to delete, although there is definiatly some doubt. --Basvb (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Decided to crop the image proper in stead (File:Роберт Вељановски.jpg), so this is now redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjankuloski06 (talk • contribs) 2016-02-28T16:19:53 (UTC)
- Comment: Its still in use. --JuTa 19:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- @JuTa: My apologies, I seem to have overlooked that. Now it is not in use any longer. Thanks for the notice! --B. Jankuloski (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
_logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The gradient used for the lettering is likely not ineligible for copyright. See COM:TOO. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
_logo.png){kind=link}
First of {{PD-old-70}} does only apply for authors who has been dead for >70 years. {{PD-anon-70-EU}} however does, for anonymous works. This however is not known if anonymous, or just unknown;
Please use this template only if you can make sure that the author never claimed authorship or his/her authorship never became public in any other way.
We need to make sure that it never was made public. As it is right now it is just "unknown", as in "we haven't found it yet".
And it also needs a US Public Domain tag, and no criteria of {{PD-US-unpublished}} seems to either rapply, or we have no evidence to support.
I may, of course, be in error here; and if I am, I'd be happy that someone else helps rectify that. Josve05a (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Question: What says the OTRS ticket? --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- That the Anna Frank Stichting doesn't know who the author is. This work could very well be unplublished in the US so there is a good change that this photograph is still protected in the US. Natuur12 (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question: How can we "make sure that it never was made public"? The description says: "“Unknown photographer” confirmed by Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam in 2015 (see email to OTRS) and search in several printed publications and image databases." What else can/must be done? --Off-shell (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Delete This is a school photograph and in the ticket was mentioned it must have been “published” because the school photographer sold it to the client. This is not true. You can only rightfully publish a work if you are the copyright owner or if you have consent from the copyright holder. When someone illegally publishes your work it doesn’t count. In the Netherlands this work would have become PD 50 or 70 years after creation if the argument that this photograph is anonymous holds up. (Not sure which term applies for this image) This however means that someone has a publication right which lasts for 25 year. This right can be enforced in Europe. I have some doubt that this work is anonymous, the photographer’s name just happens to be lost. (A school photographer who wants to be anonymous? Unlikely story). So if the anonymous-argument fails the duration would be life+70 years and we would have to know when the photographer died.
We also have to take US law into account. It is possible that the work has never been rightfully published in the US. Same story regarding US law, you cannot rightfully publish someone else his/her work without permission. Unpublished anonymous works are protected for 120 years after creation or the author has to be death for a long time (don’t remember the exact date but it is somewhere pre 1900 anyways) and we are nowhere near either of those expire dates.
There is a chance that the work, if published, had a copyright term in the US due to a bilateral treaty (see here) but we have no idea when that term would have started, or if the formalities were met, without details of the original publication. We have no evidence that this work is free in the Netherlands and the US. Natuur12 (talk) 22:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Add File:AnneFrankSchoolPhoto cropped.jpg, a derivative of this image. Revent (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Comment In this photograph Anne Frank is posing for a photographer at the 6th Montessori School, Niersstraat 41-43 in Amsterdam, probably in 1940. The photograph is made by an unknown photographer (see further on).
Dutch Copyright Law: De Nederlandse auteurswet art. 38 applies to this photograph (made in the Netherlands, by an anonymous school photographer):
Article 38 1. Copyright of a work, of which the creator is not mentioned or not mentioned in a way that his identity is without a doubt, expires after 70 years, counting from 1 January of the year following on the year in which the first disclosure of the work took place. (translation by Vysotsky)
To be sure that Art. 38.1 of Dutch copyright law is applicable, two points are important:
- A. The photographer needs to be unknown and untraceable. Coming to this conclusion didn’t happen overnight, but took some months. I looked through 26 books about Anne Frank, searched for this photograph in all books and studied the captions to see if the photographer was mentioned. I looked at several websites and image databases on the topic and looked for the photograph. Both searches were in vain: the name of the photographer was never mentioned. Furthermore, I contacted the Anne Frank Stichting (Foundation) in Amsterdam and the NIOD (Neth. Inst. of War Documentation), also in Amsterdam. I received a short (2 lines) and clear email from the Anne Frank Foundation: There is indeed no name known of the creator of the photograph. The correct mention of the source is: Fotocollectie Anne Frank Stichting Amsterdam. The email from the Anne Frank Foundation Amsterdam was added to the OTRS-correspondence. Checking NIOD (both their image database online and in situ) didn’t help to get the name of the photographer either.
- B. The photograph needs to originate from before 31 December 1945. The original date is pretty certain: most likely 1940 (comparing other school photo’s), but in any case before 6 July 1942, when the Frank family went into hiding in het Achterhuis in Amsterdam.
US Copyright Law: anonymous photograph, published between 1923 and 1963, copyright not renewed: copyright term of 28 years: USCode at Cornell.edu & EN-Wiki: 28 years (from publication) if copyright not renewed.
The documents sent to OTRS (both in Dutch and in English, from which the above is an excerpt) show that this photograph is Public Domain, both under Dutch & US Copyright. The documents were reviewed by an OTRS member and stored in the permission archive under ticket #201509231001506 on 23 Sept. 2015.Vysotsky (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep per Vysotsky's arguments. --Off-shell (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- So how exactly does using someone else his/her photograph without permission count as being published? Natuur12 (talk) 09:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Dutch copyright law doesn’t use the word publication. Dutch copyright law uses the word openbaarmaking (making public). To this photograph of Anne Frank the Nederlandse auteurswet § 4, art. 12, 1, 2° applies: [Als] Openbaarmaking […] wordt mede verstaan de verbreiding van het geheel of een gedeelte van het werk of van eene verveelvoudiging daarvan, zoolang het niet in druk verschenen is (ENG -my transl.): [As a way of] making public is a.o. regarded the spreading of the complete work or a part of it or a multiplication of the work, if it has not yet appeared in print.). This clearly indicates that under Dutch copyright law this photograph is regarded as being made public prior to 1945, and (topped with the argument of the unknown photographer, as evidenced by the Anne Frank Stichting) consequently falls in the Public Domain. As to US Copyright: see above. Vysotsky (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Openbaarmaking = publication/being publised. You cannot use Vandale to translate juridical terms. And again, selling a photograph to your client doesn't count as a openbaarmaking or the file being published. I can ask a real lawyer if you want. Natuur12 (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the Dutch law text. Nederlandse auteurswet § 4, art. 12, 1, 2° reads: [Als] openbaarmaking wordt mede verstaan [...] eene verveeelvoudiging [van het werk], zoolang het niet in druk verschenen is. = (which is -even taking in your suggested translation- in English:) As a publication is also understood to be [...] a duplication [of the work], if it has not yet appeared in print. Of course I consulted a lawyer during the process, who made clear which law articles & jurisprudence applied, suggested looking through all kind of publications, suggested contacting NIOD & Anne Frank Stichting, etc. I have worked on this one photograph for months and looked at every detail I could think of. I have no doubt about PD, both under Dutch & US copyright laws. Vysotsky (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I talked with a Jurist regarding this file before commenting and he shared my concerns. So what? And I have read the Dutch law text many times before commenting and no doubt that I will read it many times again in the future. Natuur12 (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please read the Dutch law text. Nederlandse auteurswet § 4, art. 12, 1, 2° reads: [Als] openbaarmaking wordt mede verstaan [...] eene verveeelvoudiging [van het werk], zoolang het niet in druk verschenen is. = (which is -even taking in your suggested translation- in English:) As a publication is also understood to be [...] a duplication [of the work], if it has not yet appeared in print. Of course I consulted a lawyer during the process, who made clear which law articles & jurisprudence applied, suggested looking through all kind of publications, suggested contacting NIOD & Anne Frank Stichting, etc. I have worked on this one photograph for months and looked at every detail I could think of. I have no doubt about PD, both under Dutch & US copyright laws. Vysotsky (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The thorough explanation from Vysotsky is convincing, looking at the refered laws (in the original Dutch) would lead me to the same conclusions. The note of "consulting a jurist" who says that this is not valid, without giving his argumentation makes me unable to use this information (it's only hear-say for me). --Basvb (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This is possibly too complex; see COM:TOO. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 06:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- This file description page is a mess. The statements "The copyright holder of this work allows anyone to use it" and "This image […] does not meet the threshold of originality needed for copyright protection" are mutually incompatible. Since this file description was supposedly vetted by OTRS, what is in that ticket? If it's a confirmation that someone thinks it's ineligible for copyright protection, then that's not what OTRS is for. If it's a confirmation that the copyright holder irrevocably agrees to allow anyone to modify, use and redistribute it for any purposes, including commercial purposes, then the PD tag should be removed. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The OTRS permission seems to be valid and the logo is in use - @Reinhard Kraasch: , what do you think about this ticket? - This ticket refer two german templates "Bild-frei" and "Bild-LogoSH" (the latter template is for the trademark sign). And there is a minor bug from my transfer script (file move from de.wp to commons) which translated the german template "Bild-LogoSH" to two different commons templates "PD-textlogo" and "Trademark" regardless of an OTRS template or any other license tag. I fxied this in this case by removing {{PD-textlogo}} which is clearly not correct.--Wdwd (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- To me this was a valid permission given by the copyright holder, he explicitly referenced "Bild-frei" (which is a wording that is as close as possible to "give it the public domain" which exactly does not exist according to German law) as well as he stated "Mir ist bekannt, dass ... Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern." - "I know that others have the right to use the image commercially and to modify it". The reasons for the somehow contradictive templates have already been explained by WdWd. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Kraasch: he sounds like he's competent with wikilanguage. Any chance you could ask if he prefers Attribution or PD-author? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- According to the OTRS ticket and de:template:Bild-frei, there is no need for any attribution and the corresponding licence template should be PD-author. Yellowcard (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Reinhard Kraasch: he sounds like he's competent with wikilanguage. Any chance you could ask if he prefers Attribution or PD-author? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:26, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
- To me this was a valid permission given by the copyright holder, he explicitly referenced "Bild-frei" (which is a wording that is as close as possible to "give it the public domain" which exactly does not exist according to German law) as well as he stated "Mir ist bekannt, dass ... Dritte das Recht haben, das Bild gewerblich zu nutzen und zu verändern." - "I know that others have the right to use the image commercially and to modify it". The reasons for the somehow contradictive templates have already been explained by WdWd. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- The OTRS permission seems to be valid and the logo is in use - @Reinhard Kraasch: , what do you think about this ticket? - This ticket refer two german templates "Bild-frei" and "Bild-LogoSH" (the latter template is for the trademark sign). And there is a minor bug from my transfer script (file move from de.wp to commons) which translated the german template "Bild-LogoSH" to two different commons templates "PD-textlogo" and "Trademark" regardless of an OTRS template or any other license tag. I fxied this in this case by removing {{PD-textlogo}} which is clearly not correct.--Wdwd (talk) 22:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Basvb (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
URV von https://cdn.saschak.ch/SaschaKraehenbuehl-750x500.jpg, solange Peter1984 3 nicht belegt, dass er der Fotograf selbst ist. Jbergner (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and precautionary principle as possible copyvio from https://cdn.saschak.ch/SaschaKraehenbuehl.jpg. --Rosenzweig τ 21:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
As a WWII photograph by Heinrich Hoffman, the image is PD in the US but it seems unclear if it is PD in Germany. It was published in Germany in June 1940 and in the United States (unauthorized) a couple days later. If not considered a Lichtbilder photograph in Germany (50 years copyright after publication) it would not be PD in Germany until 2027.--Labattblueboy (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Bryan Ferry
[edit]All of these photos were uploaded from Eva Rinaldi's Flickr stream but the EXIF states that Marek Jezierski is the author. I tagged them as copyvios but this was reversed by @Tm: , who left a message for me that suggests that they think that the camera model and serial number matches Eva's, that this could be a work for hire, and that therefore she holds copyright. I am not so sure, because even if Marek used Eva's camera, I think the copyright belongs to him rather than her. I suspect Marek is this guy and unless we have confirmation (ideally via OTRS or Flickr or some other method), we should assume that Eva cannot license these photos and we cannot keep them here. Commons rules at COM:EVID require proof from those who believe the photos should be kept.
- File:Bryan Ferry (6891697798).jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry (7037788817).jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry (7037791969).jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry (7037810327).jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry 2006.jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry, Roxy Music, (5476611968).jpg
- File:Bryan Ferry, Roxy Music, (5476611974).jpg
- File:BryanFerrySingFeb2011.jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476221387).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476221443).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476221457).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476221465).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476702622).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC (5476702668).jpg
- File:Roxy Music - Bryan Ferry (5475970615).jpg
- File:Roxy Music - Bryan Ferry (5476550910).jpg
- File:Roxy Music - Bryan Ferry (5476550924).jpg
- File:Roxy Music - Bryan Ferry (5476550930).jpg
- File:Roxy Music - Bryan Ferry (5476550938).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC BRYAN FERRY (5476626812).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC BRYAN FERRY (5476626826).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC LIVE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE SYDNEY (5476778222).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC LIVE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE SYDNEY (5476778234).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC LIVE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE SYDNEY (5476778248).jpg
- File:ROXY MUSIC LIVE ENTERTAINMENT CENTRE SYDNEY (5476778268).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
FredWalsh (talk) 10:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
כנראה מפר זכויות יוצרים () ביקורת (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question @ביקורת: Why do you believe this is a copyright violation? Riley Huntley (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- מעלה התמונה העלה אותה עם ציון שם הצלם, שלא תאם לשמו. שאלתי אותו בדף שיחתו בוויקיפדיה העברית - הוא לא סיפק הסברים ברורים ונעלם. ביקורת (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: see e.g. here the picture it has been cropped from. --Jcb (talk) 16:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
כנראה מפר זכויות יוצרים (he:שיחת משתמש:בחור כהלכה) ביקורת (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Question @ביקורת: Why do you believe this is a copyright violation? Riley Huntley (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: small resolution, missing EXIF, probably copyvio. --Jcb (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
INSERITO NUOVO ACCOUNT, DEVO INSERIRLO CON NUOVO ACCOUNT LTROMA (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request shortly after upload. --Jcb (talk) 21:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Docteur en histoire (Paris I, Panthéon-Sorbonne), j'avais considérablement enrichi en y passant beaucoup de temps, hier soir, la notice de mon arrière-grand-père, Constantin Cheynet de Beaupré, sur Wikipedia, y apportant des sources indiscutables (références précises du Service Historique de la Défense à Vincennes, en particulier). Je tiens à préciser que cet article est présent sur Wikipedia depuis bien des années et que je n'en suis nullement l'auteur. Il était demandé, en bandeau, que des personnes connaissant le sujet complètent les sources, invitation à laquelle j'ai donc répondu hier soir, après m'être rendu aux Archives de l'armée, notamment. Ce soir, un certain Correcteur21 vient de saccager mon travail (ainsi que celui d'un précédent contributeur sérieux, travaillant également sur archives originales), en supprimant ce jour 98 % des références et en "réécrivant" l'article à sa manière. De surcroît, il demande la suppression pure et simple de cette page "Constantin Félicien Cheynet" qu'il a caviardée et qu"il a contribué à appauvrir très notablement, au motif d'un "pushing" familial. Je ne vois pas en quoi le fait d'enrichir un article pré-existant en y ajoutant des sources précises de dépôts d'archives publiques, parce que l'on connaît le sujet, constituerait un "pushing" familial... Dans ce contexte, ce sera naturellement la dernière fois que je contribuerai à Wikipedia et naturellement, je ne souhaite pas qu'une illustration, destinée à rendre le site plus beau et intéressant, soit conservée dans vos données. Je souhaite donc recouvrer cette photographie que j'avais mise en confiance sur le site Wikimedia commons mais qui n'aura bientôt plus d'utilité (la page de mon arrière-grand-père allant être supprimée, si j'ai bien tout compris). Avec mes regrets, Marc Cheynet de Beaupré Mcbeaupre (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Kept: revoked by nominator. --Jcb (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
