Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/03/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Commons logo
Commons logo

This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests.

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive March 6th, 2016
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:La Colmena de la Reina.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:La Eyhzed-Lya La Apertura del Sello.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sergio Cobos Arco y iii.jpg

[edit]

Unused {{Userpage image}} Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:·Sergio Cobos Arco.jpg

[edit]

Unused {{Userpage image}} Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:France ww2 el.gif

[edit]

Too low resolution in order to be useful. Glorious 93 (talk) 13:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My fault I reverted the map to its original (biger) size...

 Kept, fixed. Taivo (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:User-trash-full-4.svg

[edit]

por que si pot q quiero 177.229.110.250 02:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy kept: Vandalism. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg

[edit]

This image was shot by a monkey who picked up a camera that a photographer had dropped. The photographer later published the image, and it garnered some press attention. I uploaded it to Commons on the basis that the image was not created by a human and that therefore nobody holds copyright in it. Recently, User:Geni deleted it for the following reason: "Copyright violation: enough post processing was done on the image that there is a reasonable chance that it qualifies for copyright see OTRS:2012120510006092". (See also further discussion at User talk:Geni#File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg.)

I disagree with this assertion. Any routine post-processing of the digital image, such as filtering, rotating or cropping, is not (in my opinion) a creative act that on its own is sufficient to make the image a copyrighted work. (This argument has, incidentally, found the support of the legal blogger David Post at [1], and the technology publication Techdirt has also refused to honor a takedown request of the image for the same reason.) As concerns Commons in particular, if we were to accept the argument that acts such as cropping suffice to establish copyright, we'd need to delete many files we now use per COM:ART, because I assume that many of these photographs of old paintings etc. have been similarly processed.

Because I think that this issue merits a broader discussion, I've undeleted the image and am making it the subject of a deletion discussion. For the foregoing reasons, I'm of the opinion that we should keep the image. Sandstein (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping improves framing, which is an artistic choice. Depending on what the original photo shows, of course, the person who edited it may have artistically decided to include specific parts of the photo and exclude other specific and substantial parts. This person may even have rotated the image a creatively specific degree to give it that quirky, off-center look. What kind of camera took this photo? Was it a point-and-shoot, or were there lens settings that someone creatively chose? Were those creatively chosen lens settings then changed by the subject before its shot was snapped? Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep per nom, implausible that the processing would have resulted in a defensible copyright claim. (Side note, it's common practice here on Commons that a user would crop an image or adjust the color levels of a public domain image, without adding a license tag. I think we routinely behave according to the principle that such minor acts do not add significant creativity.) -Pete F (talk) 21:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Morning ☼ (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Macaca nigra self-portrait and derivatives

[edit]
This section is a fresh nomination made in August 2014. This is not the discussion above in the blue box which ended January 2013.

This photograph is copyright to David Slater. Wikimedia is displaying it unlawfully. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 14:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Slater has not released copyright on this image: it is therefore not in the public domain. I have read the previous discussions on nomination for deletion and the arguments to keep the image seem very thin. David Slater had brought the cameras and set up the photography session. Under those circumstances, even if a human being had pressed the button to take an image with one of David Slater's cameras in David Slater's photography session, all paid for and organised by David Slater, that human being would not own the copyright of the photograph: it would belong to the person who owned the camera and had paid for the photography, and that would be David Slater in this instance. To quibble that the photo is in the public domain because the macaque pressed the button and an animal can't own copyright makes Wikipedia look absurd. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, pending outcome of trial - The matter is currently being disputed in court. The outcome of this deletion should reflect the outcomes of the trial(s). It's a very unusual case with merits on both sides. Let's not jump to conclusions just yet. YuMaNuMa (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Objection to waiting is fairly obvious: the photograph is clearly not in the public domain. It either belongs to David Salter, or - according to some editors on Wikimedia - to a monkey. Either way, it's in copyright, and therefore not eligible for Wikimedia. SeraphinaWinsham 18:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not David Salter that owns the copyright then the picture is in the public domain. There is not a nation on earth that allows non-human animals to hold copyright, and so any creative works are de facto public domain, as is Wikimedia's current assumption. We should wait until he has proven that he holds the copyright before deletion so as not to set a precedent where any file gets deleted upon unfounded claim of copyright. Newbornstranger 04:10, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Maybe Slater and the monkey both own the copyright. It seems possible to argue it either way. But yeah, let's wait for the trial. Cathfolant (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to wait for the trial. There are two possibilities. The first is that the monkey is acting as a device (this is the photographer's argument). He owns the photo even if a creature pushed the shutter. In that case, the copyright is his and it is emphatically not in the public domain. The second is that the monkey took the photograph and "owns" it. If we're willing to attribute sufficient creative action to the monkey to decide it owns the copyright, then it is also not in the public domain. It's the sole copyright of the monkey until such time as it develops sapience and gets a lawyer to release it. It is clever but self-serving and unfair to claim that the monkey can both own the photo but be unable to license it, especially when the default expectation is that works are copyrighted by the author automatically. The latter explanation leaves us with the amusing outcome that Slater doesn't own the copyright and is in fact infringing upon the monkey's right, but that's not our problem. Protonk (talk) 15:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    {{PD-animal}} seems to imply that animals cannot own a copyright. Cathfolant (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Animals certainly cannot under US law have automatic copyright. So if the monkey did take the photo then its in public domain. His argument is that he set the camera up so he owns copyright, i don't bye that setting the camera up does not constitute placing the camera for the photo and capturing the image, there is no argument that the monkey did this part of it. By Slater's reckoning all photographers assistants would have right to copyright. I feel sorry for Slater greatly but feel this is clearly one for the foundations legal team to deal with. Blethering Scot 17:30, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    David Salter didn't merely "set the camera up": he paid for and organised the entire event which led to a macaque monkey happening to press the button. He's not the "photographic assistant": even if you ignore his copyright as photographer, he has IP rights as the person who paid for the event. If I organise an event, take my camera to the event, and in the course of the event someone picks my camera up without permission and takes a photo with it, they don't own the copyright: I do. SeraphinaWinsham 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, they do own it. But only because they are human. But a monkey isn't human. In terms of law, it's a machine to help the photographer make the photo. So in this case the photographer retains the copyright, if it exists. --rtc (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The law in the US is very clear; unless something is a work for hire, which generally means the person is an employee of yours and not merely a contractor, who supplied the money and equipment is irrelevant; the person who does the creative work is the copyright holder.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Discussion in one place is more convenient. Jee 16:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If a human infant had taken a photo by pressing a button on its parent's camera, does that photo belong to the parent, the infant, or to no one? This strikes me as a similar situation. Aside from the mass-media-friendly novelty aspect of this issue, the copyright is clearly David Slater's. Blacksun1942 (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really the same.Blethering Scot 17:30, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    Much closer than the claim that a macaque pressing a button because it made an interesting noise is somehow a photographer. SeraphinaWinsham (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For first: It never matters who owns a camera. While it is true that Mr. Slater would own the copyrigh if he setup everything and someone other just pressed the trigger, that is not the case here. Because Mr. Slater didn’t chose the motive, the animal did. So we can keep the image. --DaB. (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Slater has on many occasions stated hat he did not take the image. He is by his own admission not the creator of the image in question. The Macaca cannot own copyrights, hence its valid classification as a public domain image. The debate about the deletion of this image might come up again once Slater changes his story about the circumstances of the creation of this image. -- 2A02:8109:1700:D9C:78F6:361B:5646:C788 15:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Who own the camera and spend the money may not relevant; but the degree of control the person exercised over the final product is. So we need to consider who preset the settings as little chances that the Macaca did it. Jee 15:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • He didn't however place the setting for the image or capture the image. If he placed the image then its an extremely valid point, but we no he actually didn't because the monkey took hundreds of pictures some just of the ground.Blethering Scot 17:36, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Delete We need not only to consider copyright, but in many countries, additional related rights exist for photos, like German Leistungsschutzrecht. We need to take this into account because commons is an international project. Such related rights grant you exclusive rights regardless of the amount of creativity you put into a photo, as long as you contributed a minimum of skill and effort. This is given by the fact that Mr. Slater set up the camera in such a way that the macaque took it and made pictures. With respect to US law, as far as I understood it, if you press the button accidentally, it's still copyrighted. This case is essentially the same, but just a little more elaborate. The photographer was in fact creative. He intended to make photos of that monkey which were basically pretty similar to the outcome. He set up the camera for it. Then the setup actually produced the intended photos, though not quite as planned. That's the monkey taking away the camera and pressing the button. Animals are not humasn according to law, but objects. A monkey with a camera is legally not different from a drone flying randomly generated paths and takes pictures at random points in time. The setup here is basically the same, except for that randomness not being intended, but being an unintended consequence of the setup, but this is, again, apparently not necessary given copyrightability of photos made by accidentally pressing the button. Of course, one can argue in the opposite way, as DaB. did. It is a legally grey area. There's a risk of losing a costly legal battle, which I don't think outweights the benefits of keeping this picture. Without prejudice, delete this picture. --rtc (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

name the specific right in question that might prevent usage of this image. -- 2A02:8109:1700:D9C:78F6:361B:5646:C788 15:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did and won't repeat myself. --rtc (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete See my comments here. Basically either Slater owns the photo and it's therefore not PD or the animal owns it and it still isn't PD. Protonk (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Animals can't own copyright. If the monkey owns it, then it's PD. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep
non-copyrighted chimpanzee painting
We do have a painting by a chimpanzee. Common sense here is that animals cannot hold a copyright. because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested. Obviously Mr. Slater is not the photographer (he does not even claim to be), so he cannot hold the copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrank99 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
That may be true, but Mr. Slater holds related rights, which exist for photographies, but not for paintings. --rtc (talk) 16:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, David Slater does say he's the photographer responsible for the image and that he holds the copyright. If Wikimedia editors wish to claim that the monkey who pressed the button holds the copyright, in order to get permission to display the photo on Wikimedia, they need to travel to Indonesia, find and identify the monkey who pressed the button and get the monkey's permission to make the images public domain. Do any of the editors who've called for the retention of an image in copyright wish to go that route? SeraphinaWinsham 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That's in poor faith. No one is claiming that the monkey holds the copyright. We are claiming that, as the monkey took the picture the photo has no copyright, as works created by animals are explicitly excepted from most copyright laws. Newbornstranger 04:16, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Mr Slater didn't even set up the camera specifically for the selfies, so I believe that his contribution in terms of skill and effort is not enough to grant him the copyright. Also, consider that the Wikimedia Foundation has denied a takedown request by Mr Slater, so it seems they're ready to fight a legal battle and they think it would be won. --Jaqen (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone sets up a camera in a forrest to be triggered by a passing animal, who would own the copyright? I would argue that it is morally indefensible to deprive Mr Slater of his rights in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.66.240 (talk • contribs) 16:41, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Why second-guess Wikimedia Foundation's own judgement on this? Is anyone here really claiming to be greater legal experts than WF, who will bear the liability, itself? If Mr Slater disagrees with WF's call, the only right place to have it settled would be in a court of law - not on Commons talk pages.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Irrespective of the WMF perspective, I don't think we have a good legal precedent here to go so far as to deny copyright. If we got this wrong we denied the photgrapher the fruits of his labour. The zeal people seem to have to "get this out there" is almost mean spirited. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'm not a lawyer, but i might vote for "keep", although i don't want to take away any copyrights of Mr. Slater on this photo (if there are any). As far as i read in the past about it, the Macaca grabbed the camera and played with it. Neither was the photo intended (like setting up a trigger for "passing by"), nor did the Macaca know, what it did. In fact, the Macaca "choosed" the motif and took the photo unknowingly, and Mr. Slater did not want it to happen in that way. In germany law we have something called "Schöpfungshöhe" ( http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6pfungsh%C3%B6he ), which is not given here, because the photo has been taken accidentally. - Well, in the end a court has to decide. I suppose, our opinions don't count. I'm VERY curious about the outcome, because it's a very special and rare case. --Zefrian (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to stress, in German law, the absence of Schöpfungshöhe is not enough in case of photos, because photos are covered by Leistungsschutzrecht in addition to Urheberrecht. For Leistungsschutzrecht, it is sufficient that a minimum of skill and effort is involved ("ein Mindestmaß an geistiger Leistung"). It has always been argued that this threshold is very, very low and basically everything that's not photocopy is restricted by law. And we have similar laws in other countries; one that covers this picture would be enough... We don't know the exact setup. To what degree this was a random outcome and to what degree the photographer tried to motivate the animal to make those photos is beyond our knowledge. It's a grey area as I stated. I think we shouldn't be egoistical and hostile in this case. We'll survive without this picture. Pissing of the photographer certainly causes greater damage than that. --rtc (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep In Germany Germany this picture is in the public domain, since works of art must be personal intellectual creations and an animal ist not a person. (§2 Abs 2 UrhG) --Rôtkæppchen68 17:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This argument has now been repeated several times, and it is still wrong. In Germany, this picture is covered by Leistungsschutzrecht, which does not require it to be an intellectual creation. It is sufficien that a minimum of skill and effort was involved. That's a difference between photos and paintings. --rtc (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... I've read the german article on Verwandte Schutzrechte and the "wrongness" isn't at all clear to me. I suppose you're referring to §72 UrhG but that grants protection to whoever made the image using a process simular to Lichtbilder. In this case, it's not the man who created the image, it's the monkey. Hence the man has no protection under that title. Kleuske (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(BK)Nope. Holder of the Leistungsschutzrecht according to §72 Abs 2 UrhG would be the Animal. An Animal is not a legal personality in German law. Thus there is no Leistungsschutzrecht on this picture neither is it a work of art. --Rôtkæppchen68 17:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're both right to say "In this case, it's not the man who created the image, it's the monkey", but your conclusion "Hence the man has no protection under that title" is wrong. It's a non sequitur. It's as wrong as claiming that the camera processor is eventually making the picutre, not the human. The human who invests his skill and effort, who sets ups the camera to eventually have this picture shot, is holder of the Leistungsschutzrechte. "Mit automatischen Kameras aufgenommene Luftbilder und Satellitenfotos sind als Lichtbilder ... anzusehen" (de:Bildrechte#Luftbildaufnahmen_und_milit.C3.A4rische_Anlagen) A satellite falls into the same legal category as a monkey -- according to law, both are merely objects, so it wouldn't be right to treat them differently. --rtc (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(nach BK)Sorry for continuing in German. Nach HM ist derjenige der Lichtbildner, der auf den Auslöser drückt, nicht der, der die Kamera zur Verfügung stellt. Auch ist die Kamera manuell durch den Makaken betätigt worden. --Rôtkæppchen68 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Nach HM ist derjenige der Lichtbildner, der auf den Auslöser drückt, nicht der, der die Kamera zur Verfügung stellt." But only if both are human. You are confused here and cherry-pick, treating the monkey both as a human and as an object, depending on what fits your argument best. You can't do that. The monkey is exclusively an object. It's exactly the same as a satellite -- it's a machine for activating the button at random points in time. --rtc (talk) 18:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and therefore there is neither an Urheberrecht nor a Leistungsschutzrecht on this picture, because the originator (the macaca) is not a legal personality, complete independent of the camera provider Mr Slater, which has no right at all in the picture, because he did not press the button. Property in the camera does not include property in the pictures taken with the camera. Rules for aerial, satellite and automated photos do not apply either, becausr the camera was triggered manually by the macaca and it was not airborne or on a satellite. --Rôtkæppchen68 18:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're merely repeating your opinion without considering the constradiction to my arguments. By saying "becausr the camera was triggered manually by the macaca" you are cherry-picking and threating the animal as a human. It's not a human. It's an object. There are no special rules "for aerial, satellite and automated photos". From the perspective of law, a monkey is not different from a satellite. They're both machines. The fact that the satellite is an electro-mechanical machine and the monkey is a bio-chemical machine does not make any legal difference at all. --rtc (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong again. The opinion that "Mit automatischen Kameras aufgenommene Luftbilder und Satellitenfotos sind als Lichtbilder, aber nicht als Lichtbildwerke anzusehen." is Austrian Law, not German, see reference [2]. --Rôtkæppchen68 19:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not wrong. Unlikely as it may seem to you, in that section the Austrian court is in fact discussing deutsches Urheberrechtsgesetz, "dUrhG". --rtc (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse. I know that Austrian law courts sometimes use German Law and German court decisions instead of making own ones, but this has no effect on Germany. Also your conclusion from satellite to macaca violates the prohibition of analogy (Analogieverbot). --Rôtkæppchen68 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may or may not be that it has no effect on Germany, but that doesn't change the fact that what court says is and has always been the situation in Germany. I don't conclude from the macaca to the satellite, but I conclude from the general principle or photos shot by help of machines, for which the satellite and the macaca are both equally valid examples. Which doesn't mean that I agree that something like a prohibition of analogy exists. --rtc (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Animals certainly cannot under US law have automatic copyright, German law does not matter only US. So if the monkey did take the photo then its in public domain. His argument is that he set the camera up so he owns copyright, i don't bye that at all, setting the camera up does not constitute placing the camera for the photo and capturing the image, there is no argument that the monkey did this part of it. By Slater's reckoning all photographers assistants would have right to copyright. I feel sorry for Slater greatly but feel this is clearly one for the foundations legal team to deal with and given they denied a take down notice its clearly one they are willing to fight. Lets leave them to it. Blethering Scot 17:33, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not just German law, similar laws exist in many other countries. US law is not the only one relevant here, because commons is an international project. "i don't bye that at all" is not an argument. --rtc (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now in the Torygraph. I won't vote since the newspaper brought me here but this issue really does capture the arrogance of commons/wikipedia and the usual refusal to consider the real world consequences to real people of our discussions. Someone wrote somewhere that commons was broken.... Spartaz (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Typical case of copyfraud by Mr. Slater. --Voyager (talk) 18:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep David Slater cannot release copyright on this image, because he's never owned any copyright over it in the first place. If you think this is copyrightable, you should start a DR for {{PD-animal}} and all images tagged with it. Nyttend (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's another non sequitur. {{PD-animal}} makes perfect sense for paintings. But this is a photo. In Germany, and I doubt it's different in the US, photos shot by help of a machine, like satellite photos, are copyrighted by the one who caused, or permitted, that the machine would make that photo. And, in legal terms, the monkey is just such a machine here. I see a lot of arguments along the lines of "the photographer was the monkey, but a monkey is not a human, so no copyright". But that's fallacious. What it is really saying is that "the human photographer was the monkey, but a monkey is not a human" That's cherry picking. You can't treat it as a human, then not treat it as one. You have to be consistent. You have to say: The photographer was a human, who, by the help of a machine--the monkey--made a photo of that machine. Like a satellite photo. Or a photo shot by an automated drone. Or a vehicle on mars. That the machine--the monkey--is a biochemical one here instead of an electro-mechanical one, doesn't make any difference. --rtc (talk) 19:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The analysis that the image is public domain seems reasonable at first sight, and WMF has refused to take down the image when requested. I think the image should be kept unless Slater's claim of owning copyright is somehow substantiated. --A3 nm (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 DeleteThe arguments for keeping the image fall into two forms: One that as the Wikimedia Foundation has decided to keep the photograph, it's incumbent on Wikimedia editors to defend the decisions of Wikimedia against the rights of the individual photographer. That seems to fall on very shaky ground ethically. Two, that even though David Salter is clearly the photographer responsible for the image existing, the copyright of the image belongs to a monkey in Indonesia, and as the legal right of the monkey to own a copyright is denied, anyone can take the photograph and make use of it who likes. This is both dishonourable and illogical: if the Wikimedia editors honestly believe that the monkey in Indonesia owns the copyright of the photograph, they should honour the legal right of the monkey and unless they have specific permission from that monkey to use the photograph, it's not public domain. It would appear simply that the claim that an animal owns copyright is being used simply for the sake of taking the photograph away from the photographer responsible in order to have it on Wikimedia. Is this in accordance with Wikimedia principles? --SeraphinaWinsham 19:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep The monkey is not a machine set up by Slater and it's not a work for hire where another human, in an arrangement, pushed a button. He can and should sue if he feels wronged, but I don't see how he created it when it's a "selfie". Slater talks about his expenditures to make photographs on this journey, but how serious can this investment be when (if I read the article correctly) his livelihood depends on the chance of a camera taken away by an animal. Taking the camera himself to make photos of dangerous places, yes, but collecting it only to claim copyright? Going through the images and picking one accidentally good photo by the monkey does not a creator make. I don't know why German law is being discussed here. Hekerui (talk) 19:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know where you've got the idea that David Slater intended to give his camera away to the monkeys. Though if he had, his claim to be the originator of the photo would be all the stronger, wouldn't it? Where did you read that - got a cite? --SeraphinaWinshamSeraphinaWinsham (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually tried to make myself clearer when you responded, which lead to an edit conflict. Thanks for your careful reading though. I clarified my remark. Also, why not put your statement above mine together with your statement at the beginning, it does not seem to be a response. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    German law is discussed here because this is Commons, an international project, so all jurisdictions are relevant. Why do you treat the monkey differently from any other machine making random photos at random points in time? Like drones, satellites, vehicles on mars? It's set up by allowing it to take the camera, even accidentally. Photos don't lose copyright merely because they were shot accidentally, whether by man himself or a machine he allowed to press the button! --rtc (talk) 19:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting point. Nasa doesn't enforce copyright on such images, but on closer scrutiny does expect attribution of the source. Their website explains that Nasa relinquish such rights as policy (ie they initially held copyright for all such images) with conditions, much like a Creative Commons license. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html#.U-MVDWOnwlQ . So it would appear that images taken by non humans are copyright of the entity or person which administered or created the situation by which the image was generated. This would support David Slater's position. Additionally, the European Space Agency, as a comparison, claims the copyright on all images produced by satellites and rovers and indeed anything else on its website. See the copyright notice. http://sci.esa.int/herschel/ Tonyinman (talk) 06:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @rtc: German law is totally not relevant to this case. odder (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. Of course it is relevant. Commons is an international project, it is subject to all laws of all countries. And Germany is certainly not the only country with these kinds of laws. It's even questionable whether it's different in the US. Are photos made by machines, such as satellites or monkeys, not copyrighted in the US? --rtc (talk) 19:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, only American law applies here. Otherwise we would have to delete pornography, blasphemy, swastikas and so on. 24.215.95.52 04:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Germany is not a relevant jurisdiction for this image. It is hosted in the U.S., and Slater says he seeks American representation. He is British and the picture was taken in Indonesia. Germany does not matter in this case. Hekerui (talk) 19:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We're discussion the legal status and deletion of the picture, not any specific legal battle Slater v. Wikipedia. It's irrelevant where commons is hosted. The audience commons targets is relevant. And this audience is international, so German law applies in the same way as US, British and Italian law does. --rtc (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @rtc: What nonsense. The only laws that apply here are Indonesian, UK and US. In none of them can a non-human animal hold copyright. odder (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not nonsense, it's international law. Is true that "In none of them can a non-human animal hold copyright" But that is an argument in favour of the fact that the human who set up the camera prior to the random shots holds the copyright. --rtc (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong keep for both per this Wikimedia Foundation statement. odder (talk) 19:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Does the Wikimedia Foundation have the monkey's permission to make use of the photos which the Wikimedia Foundation is claiming is owned by the monkey?--SeraphinaWinshamSeraphinaWinsham (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but Wikimedia is not claiming that the copyright is owned by the macaque in question. The claim is that the image is in the public domain, having been authored by the macaque. La Maga (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's self-contradictory. Either the macaque authored something, and thus has a copyright, or it is an object, a machine, and thus has neither authored something nor obtained a copyright on it. If I set up a camera to take a picture after 10 seconds, would you also claim the camera has authored the picture and it's thus in the public domain? If not, why are you making that difference? Because the macace is not an electromechanical, but a biochemical machine? --rtc (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Under US law, which I gather is the prevailing law that the WF is held under, a macaque cannot hold a copyright. That being said, your logic is faulty because it is not operating under the direction of, control of, or at the behest of a human, much less the one who is claiming to own the rights. As of yet, machines, biomechanical or not, are not given autonomy of rights. Arguably that means that the zoo owns the copyright as its owner, but that still doesn't make the "photographer" the owner. Cat-five (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    1) The WMF has to obey the law of all jurisdictions in which it offers its web pages. For example, it has already been sued in courts of European countries. Only the WMF's internals are subject exclusively to US law. 2) This is not about the WMF, but about our decision as the commons community. We can discuss all aspects, and are not restricted to the current legal conflict in which the WMF is involved. 3) No, your logic is faulty. The human has made the decision to allow the macaca to take the camera. This is precisely the same as allowing a machine, like a drone, to shoot random photos at random points in time. Just because we perceive the macaca as more human-like than the drone does not make it a different thing in legal terms. You are right, "As of yet, machines, biomechanical or not, are not given autonomy of rights" and that's important. But your conclusions are wrong. Not the owner of machines such as cameras or anything used in addition for automated button-pressing at random points in time (such as a monkey) becomes copyright holder. The human who sets up the camera to allows a photo to be made by any natural cause (any cause not under the influence of a human) becomes the copyright holder. --rtc (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rtc: Your first point is ridiculous because regardless of what a few misguided countries think (think countries that try to censor content because of their insecurity about their religious fanatics for example) think, it is utterly ridiculous to expect any website to submit itself to 196+ jurisdictions simultaneously and be held to each country's laws. That is why, for the most part, websites are only beholden to their own jurisdiction or to other ones where they have secondary interests (Google for example could tell Europe to fuck off were it not for the advertising and other businesses that require European countries' support, and also possibly agreements with the US government on internet governance). To my knowledge, the area of copyright for animals is not an issue where there is a copyright deal between countries, which almost undeniably makes this an issue of US law as that is the home jurisdiction for the WMF. That is me going down the rabbit hole though since, as you said, the WMF conflict doesn't (entirely) matter to our debate, although if it doesn't matter then I don't see what point there is in even bringing up the law. It's not the same as a drone, but to avoid repeating myself ad nauseam (or possibly infinitum) I'd ask that you see my reply to you and my reply to George 8211 below for my reasoning. Cat-five (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not ridiculous, but it's international law. The WMF does not dispute anything of what I said. It even has legal representatives outside of the US specifically for this purpose. I'm not talking about any website here. I'm talking specifically about commons, which has international audience. Certainly we can't respect any law in the world, but we have to consider the most important ones, and this one holds in Germany and other European countries, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't make a difference under US law. I don't think we need to continue discussing here, since we already have the relevant discussion below, as you pointed out yourself. --rtc (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't respect any law in the world, but we can respect yours, huh? We violates laws of a number of nations that still ban pornography and even nudity. Commons just had a violent argument where any number of Europeans told us it was outrageous that we should delete European images that were copyrighted in the US. This is not a principle upheld by the WMF or Commons users or most of the Europeans who frequent this site.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Owning the camera with which the picture was taken does not make the picture Slater's. This is simple copyfraud. La Maga (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but the fact that Slater set up the camera before it shot those photos by some sequence of natural causes makes it his. ---rtc (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If Slater had set up the camera to take that shot - which is excellent, by the way, with great bokeh, subject in clear focus etc. - then he would own the copyright, because it was his creative effort and the animal just happened to trigger the moment in an already composed shot. But this is not the case - the creature and others seized the camera, played around with it, took hundreds of different shots of different things, some in focus, most not, and this is one of the few usable ones. Serendipity is a large part of a photographer's life, and some of the most famous images were accidents or near accidents. That famous Iwo Jima flag-raising wasn't artfully composed or anything - the photographer didn't know that he had something extraordinary until much later. This image goes well beyond that. The owner of the equipment didn't set up the shot, choose the settings or press the shutter. His creative input into the base image is zero. --Skyring (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Serendipity can also come from the fact that the camera button was accidentally or randomly pressed. It cannot make a difference whether this happened directly by finger or indirectly by some object nearby hitting the button accidentally and randomly. Creative input is not required, creative output is sufficient! We do agree the picture shows creativity? --rtc (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently the creature was smiling at its own reflection in the lens and engaged by the sound of the shutter - according to Slater himself. The photograph was just one of hundreds shot, most of them showing little worth displaying. Perhaps Slater's "creative output" extends to selecting which photograph(s) taken by others to display? If the image had been snapped by a random child who stole the camera, we would not be having this discussion, nor would anybody be arguing that Slater owned the copyright. There are two factors at play here: what is the legal position, and what differences are there between humans and other primates. I say, that as described by Slater himself, the macaque and not Slater had the most input. The argument that the macaque was some sort of random machine is not convincing me, but others may differ. --Skyring (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep If I go to the library and type up a document on their computers, who owns the copyright? The only differences are that the monkey didn't have permission to use the camera, and I'm not a monkey (we hope)monkies have more primitive thoughts. George8211 (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, in both cases a work is created with help of an object (in one case the computer, in the other case the monkey) and in both cases the human retains the copyright. So I don't understand why you vote for deletion, since this is what your argument suggests. --rtc (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I create a document using library facilities, but I own the copyright. The monkey creates a picture using the photographer's facilities, but the image goes to PD since the monkey can't own the copyright. George8211 (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But in terms of law, the monkey is just an object, not a human. Only humans can create pictures. In terms of law, the monkey is just a machine, like the camera and the computer, used to create the work. --rtc (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep (Edit conflict) Having read many of these comments, this strikes me as a very odd debate and almost the epitome of pointlessness because it is fairly obvious, based off pretty much every similar debate about deletions in the history of Wikipedia, that most Wikipedians will defend the right to show the content regardless of what the, mostly outside, other forces want (Mohammed debate, Rorschach test debate, etc...) and that means that this will end up a keep. It also doesn't matter though because the decision is going to fall to the lawyers in the long run. That being said, for what it's worth, I'm voting (even though this is a consensus creating (hah) debate and not a vote) to keep based off the previously mentioned basis that it takes creative input to be the creator of the image (which the human owner of the camera didn't fulfill) and that the animal that took the photograph cannot, per US law as it exists today, hold a claim to the image's copyright. Cat-five (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the button were pressed by a drone at random points in time while flying around randomly, would you come to a different conclusion? If so, why? --rtc (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) A drone is an inanimate object, quite literally a machine and it would be endowed by its creator (to swipe a phrase from US Declaration of Independence) with the ability and the command to do so. A drone has no free will or choice in the matter. As I said, arguably the zoo, as the owner of this animal, has an argument for the right to the copyright. Barring that though, this macaque acted on its own without any outside command requiring it to do so which gives it the copyright, i.e. gives it to the public domain since there is no legal framework/ability for that. Cat-five (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cat-five: basically you mean that monkeys can think; drones can't? George8211 (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@George8211: I am not a biologist or a neurologist so I am not qualified to judge to what extent monkeys can think. I do however know that the monkey's thinking, such as it may be, is not reliant on the owner of the camera or any other human other than to the extent that any animal, humans included, may have their thought processes influenced by others (i.e. by the offering of a treat or a banana as maybe be appropriate). To that end, unlike the drone, that not only is owned by a human and whose decisions are run under the auspicious of the owner (since even if he or she didn't program it, the drone's commands are the responsibility of the owner/operator), the monkey has independence of decision making from both its owner and the owner of the camera. Cat-five (talk) 20:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A monkey doesn't have free will either. Both drones and monkeys are machines that show random behaviour. There really is no difference from the perspective of law, because none of them is human. We can't treat the monkey as a human to claim it created the picutre, then treat it as an object to say it has no copyright; then treat the drone as an object to claim it hasn't created anything and the human has the copyright. No. both are the same, and the right view is the drone view. --rtc (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A monkey doesn't have free will either. Both drones and monkeys are machines that show random behaviour. An unusual claim. I disagree with both views. Drones are programmed and (usually) directed. They are subject to atmospheric disturbances and other effects, but so are we all. Any non-random behaviour may be traced to human creators, designers or controllers. Monkeys are their own agents as much as any human. Their thought processes are not random, any more than ours are. They react to situations, they have social and cultural imperatives, they solve puzzles. They do not generally act at random. They may exhibit behaviour incomprehensible to a human observer, but that doesn't make it random. --Skyring (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyring: your comment reminds me that once on a TV programme there was a (different kind of) monkey that had lost two feet. It improvised and walked around in handstands. Machine? Random? George8211 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A drone can be programmed in such a way that it randomly chooses one path out of a set of given ones, or that it even constructs a randomized path. That doesn't make a difference. I didn't say that drones or monkeys are behaving in a completely chaotic way. Of course they show directed behaviour, but some aspects of their behaviour are random. From the point of view of law, they're both machines showing random behaviour. And that's all that matters here. It was a camera setup that, by some accident, worked out in a vastly different way than planned, yet the outcome was meaningful and creative. It's a standard case of serendipity. --rtc (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slater describes the macaque's behaviour in terms that rule out random action. The creature was fascinated by its reflection in the lens and engaged by the sound of the shutter. It kept pressing the shutter release to hear the sound. Presumably it was also treated to the shutter workings visible through the lens. Try it yourself to see and hear what the macaque experienced. It can be fascinating to watch the iris blades operate and the sensor appear as the mirror lifts. That's a decision, not random behaviour. --Skyring (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep You're repeating over and over again that the monkey is a kind of machine. But even if it can be considered that it's a machine, from the point of view of law, it doesn't imply that this machine has been setup by Mr Slater (since he reported that his camera was stollen by the machine, hmmm, the monkey). The monkey cannot be considered to belong to Mr Slater's infrastructure. So your argument that the monkey is just a machine in Mr Slater's control is void. On the contrary, Mr Slater had absolutly no control over how this picture was shot, and no intention to shot it, even indirectly. Manuco (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So some accident was involved, the machine, which was not under Mr. Slater's control, took that camera and pressed its button accidentally. That's serendipity, as if Mr. Slater had pressed the button himself, but accidentally. This does not void Mr. Slater's copyright claim, just because some serendipity was involved. The picture itself was creative and it was untimately the result of Mr. Slater's camera setup, even though that setup may have worked out in quite a different way than initially planned by Mr. Slater. --rtc (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict)The arguments being reiterated here, repeatedly, about machines are irrelevant. If a person sets up an automatic device to take a photograph on the triggering of some chosen criteria, even if that criteria is the output of a random number generator, they are taking the 'positive act' of making that choice, and thus retain copyright. In this case, it's explicitly obvious that Slater did not actually intend for the particular photos to be made, and took no action specifically meant to enable it. If the 'creator' of a work (the monkey) is ineligible to hold copyright, then the work is automatically in the public domain. Revent (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Saying the monkey "created" the work is already making him a human in legal terms, which is just as wrong as claiming it owns copyright. Please don't cherry-pick. Treat is consistently as an object, an apparatus. It cannot make a difference whether a photo was shot intentionally or not. If the photo itself is creative, and even if the creativity comes from a random number generator, that's sufficient for the person who set up the camera to obtain copyright --rtc (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone know what we're trying to achieve on this page? George8211 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the objective is to figure out whether the picture should be deleted. --rtc (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that no-one seems to have agreed on anything. George8211 (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why the discussion hasn't ended yet. --rtc (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing that seems to be being achieved here is user:Rtc playing IDHT with the rest of the community. The 'debate' was closed as keep. Revent (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the debase was not closed as keep. That debate was some time ago. This is a new debate, not initiated by me. --rtc (talk) 21:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I initiated this debate because I felt it was dishonourable and dishonest of Wikimedia to claim that a photograph authored by David Slater was "really" authored by the macaque who pressed buttons on Slater's camera, purely to take Slater's photographs from him and claim they were public domain. I agree with the general trend of what RTC has been saying here - if it's claimed the macaque who pressed the button owns the copyright, then the Wikimedians who defend that argument should travel to Indonesia, make contact with the monkey and get its permission, and meantime, have the photo taken down as it is clearly not public domain. If the photograph is - more logically - authored by David Slater, then equally it is not public domain unless Slater chooses to make it so, which he has not. There's no excuse for keeping the photos aside from the blunt one of "might makes right" - corporation takes photo from little guy. SeraphinaWinsham 21:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It is our mission to make available freely licensed or public domain media files, and if a "little guy" does not share that mission, then that little guy isn't someone we should be trying to defend when he claims more rights than he has anyway under copyright law. If you believe the public domain is about "corporation takes photo from little guy", then I don't think you've come to a site where you'll find much sympathy for your views. darkweasel94 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But these images aren't either "freely licensed or public domain media files". They belong to the photographer who authored them. Wikimedia claims that's the macaque monkey - and jumps to claim that because they belong to the monkey, Wikimedia can take them away. But they're fairly obviously authored by David Slater, and Wikimedia is just being dishonest. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim was not made that the monkey owns the copyright. That 'alleged claim' is a complete red herring. The sole issue is if Slater owns the copyright. If not, then in the absence of a valid copyright holder the image is in the public domain. It's that simple.
    Since David Slater authored the photographs, Slater owns the copyright. It's that simple. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slater contributed to the circumstances in which the photo was taken, yes, but he did not exercise any creative control over or input to the content of the image. This is not the same situation at all as if he had set up the camera on a trigger, and the money was just in front of it... the camera was removed from it's original location, moved in a random manner by the monkey, and by his own statements that was not his intent. It is not 'his' work.
As far as 'closed as keep', there have been no (real) new issues brought up in this latest nomination, and the consensus is overwhelmingly obvious. That certain people are refusing to hear them and spamming the discussion by saying the same thing over and over is irrelevant. Revent (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree that certain people are saying the same thing over and over. But that's because certain people can't accept that they can't assign copyright to a monkey in order to steal the photographs without disgracing Wikimedia. --SeraphinaWinsham22:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SeraphinaWinsham: Can you read? No one here is claiming that the monkey hold the copyright over the picture(s). odder (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Slater's claim is based on his ownership of the camera. He did not set up the shot, choose the settings, or press the shutter. He did not set any sort of timed release. The photograph was not random, it was taken by the subject who apparently liked the sound of the shutter and kept pressing the shutter release. That explains his expression. I have read all the arguments above, some going deep into territory not usually explored on a Wikimedia project, and a few of the sources, including Slater's descriptions of the circumstances. He has my sympathy, but his creative input remains zero. I don't know about non-human copyright, but the image is clearly the result of conscious action on the part of the macaque, without the prior permission or direction or involvement of the camera's owner. If it is not Slater's, and non-human creatures cannot hold copyright, then it is public domain, in my view. --Skyring (talk) 20:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter what Slater's claim is based on. This is not a court. We have to figure out whether Slater is the copyright holder, not necessarily by his own argument, but by any valid argument that can be made. Law does not consider monkeys a subject. Else the monkey would be given copyright. In terms of law, the monkey is just a machine. --rtc (talk) 20:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that Slater's claims are not final. Probably a court will have to decide the issue and we will accept the decision. But Slater's statements illuminate our own consideration here. He admits that he didn't take the shot, or set it up in any way. He also states that the animal was engaged by the sound of the shutter actuation and kept pressing the release. That can't be considered random. The macaque exhibited the same sort of conscious behaviour as we would expect of (say) a toddler playing with a camera. Unguided and unfocussed, to be sure, but hardly random. --Skyring (talk) 21:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In terms of law, the monkey is not a human, it's a machine. It doesn't matter that it's more like a human than like a machine. It's simple as that. From the point of view of the law, it's a machine showing random behaviour. --rtc (talk) 21:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Thuh law…" Which "the law" are you referring to, in which jurisdiction and under what conditions, please. --Skyring (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the case, then why do we have laws against animal cruelty? A machine feels no pain, and any response to cruelty is just random behavior..? Diliff (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - Since non-Human primates have no rights as authors, this image is in the Public domain. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant. Rama (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's wrong that "non-Human primates have no rights as authors". non-human primates are no authors. They are objects. Ownership of the camera is irrelevant, true, but not setup of camera. The setup didn't work out as planned, but that happens quite often and doesn't make a difference. --rtc (talk) 21:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're wrong about this on two points. Firstly, where do you get the notion that non-human primates are objects and cannot be authors? Secondly, imagine this scenario: A man sets up a camera to cature a time lapse of the clouds moving across the sky. His wife comes along mid way through the time lapse, and not realising it's in the middle of a time lapse, decides to take a photo with his camera. It is the wife that has created and owns the copyright to the image taken at that moment, regardless of the fact that the camera was set up by her husband to capture a time lapse. Of course this is an unlikely situation, but the logic and legality of it is quite concrete IMO. Likewise, a macaque, regardless of its ability to be an author by any legal definition, has stumbled across a camera set up for a different purpose and has hijacked the equipment for its own amusement. The photographer had no involvement in this. Diliff (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep whose is copyright: who take the photo?, who borrow the camera? or who made camera manufacturer? This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested.--EEIM (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I have added my own upload File:One-of-the-photos-taken-b-013.jpg to this deletion request, as the same issues apply there and this should really have been a mass deletion request including that photo. I'd have liked to be notified of it in another way than "why is that image suddenly appearing several times today on my watchlist, no one cared about it for months", but well. darkweasel94 21:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep I think a reasonable comparison would be if an animal had access to some kind of art supplies or raw materials (or maybe just some poop) and created some kind of "artwork" of this. Would the first human to come across this artwork own the copyright to it? What if the human left the supplies there? I think in both cases, the human does not own the copyright, and thus this should be in the public domain. RockMFR (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you ask a bunch of free culturists who has the copyright they will always side against the content creator. I see this whole thing as a kind of theft. If it wasn't for the photographer the world would not have this image. He had final say whether it was to get published or not. Even if his claim to copyright is weak, the notion it can be thus taken away from him is morally bankrupt. Saffron Blaze (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The content creator was not the human. If it wasn't for Apple, the world wouldn't have had a lot of images, yet we would dismiss any claim they had on the works made with their cameras.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Stating that Slater is "the content creator" essentially ignores the many excellent arguments above. I'll agree that it is morally queasy for us to claim that something so obviously cherished by another is common property, but it does not seem to me that Slater can be regarded as "the content creator" in any significant way. One might just as well level a charge of theft against Slater, for daring to claim something as his own when the content creator is another being who is unable to speak for himself, lacking a typewriter. --Skyring (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep The law is clear here; the monkey was the photographer using someone else's camera, therefore the monkey would own the copyright if there is one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the law says the opposite of your claim in every country. The monkey is merely an agent of an action and not the instigator of the action/creator. Since it was argued that monkeys can't own copyright, then he couldn't cdispute the copyright from the camera owner. 173.153.5.21 22:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So if the monkey had killed someone with the camera, the camera owner would have been on murder charges? If one believes a work is in the public domain, and someone else believes they own the copyright to that work, it's like any other civil disagreement; the court will listen to the first party's claim that the work is in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It seems to me a monkey couldn't be copyright owner as it is not human. Only an human could be copyright owner. So what's a monkey ? At least a monkey could be a tool like a monkey is a tool for a tamer. So this particular monkey is the object and the tool. It often happens with animal photography. A monkey never was photography creator because photography is human invention. A monkey couldn't be camera owner nor it couldn't set a camera to take a picture. Photography is only an human work. I think David Slater is the copyright owner because he made camera setting and used the monkey tool to have this picture he first owned. Louis Hoebrechts 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And yet the monkey wasn't a tool; the human expressed no control over what the monkeys did with the camera. The inventor of photography seems irrelevant; an American never was a photography creator because photography is a French invention works just as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course monkey was a tool like any dog, monkey or lion in a circus. Now, no matters about that. Fact is wikimedia never owned any rights on pictures David Slater owned as pictures creator and agent (distributor) nor never Wikimedia gained rights to publish these pictures from a court. I'm certain Wikimedia could be convicted for copyright infringements when Wikipedia/Wikimedia often ask people for donations. Be sure I will never donate to help Wikimedia to pay for copyright infringements and I'm sure many donators would think like me. This discussion is just unproductive and dishonest because two sort of (human) people have coyrights : creators (I think David Slater is) and having rights (as defined in the Belgian copyrights law). David Slater ever was the first and only owner of these pictures when Wikimedia nor anyone else never was. --Louis Hoebrechts 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Edit conflict)  Keep While I have sympathy with David Slater's position with relation to the costs he had in obtaining this image, I can see no legal precedent in UK or US law that would cover this and make it his copyright. Having said that common law countries (like the UK) have, at times, made interesting legal rulings on the copyright of works that commons and the US would view as non-copyright-able (for example the Edge Logo or Aboriginal Flag) so I would not be surprised at all if a UK court ruled that David Slater was, as a co-creator, entitled to copyright in the image and if that ever happened we should respect the courts ruling and remove the images. But absent a clear ruling covering this I think can retain the images, but should add a very clear and prominent notice that warns re-users of this dispute. LGA talkedits 22:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Equipment used to take the photograph gives copyright to the owner. If you ask someone to take a photo of you with your camera, they don't get the copyright and they never have. Otherwise, automated feeds would not be copyrighted. This has always been the case, and it is odd to see so many people willfully denying that. 173.153.5.21 22:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyright law is very clear, only an agent can dispute the ownership, and courts only rule when the agent proves that there was no direct connection with the equipment owner. Otherwise, cameramen would own the rights to movies. There is a severe lack of evidence from the keep people because it is impossible to find. Wikimedia is being mocked on thousands of newspapers because a handful of people have attempted to defy clear copyright law that should result in a delete. 173.153.5.21 22:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in Title 17, the entirety of US copyright law does it say anything about only an agent can dispute the ownership? Anyone who wants to use a work in the public domain can do so, with only the owner having the civil right to bring a lawsuit about it. Cameramen don't own the rights to movies for several reasons because the lawmakers and judges found that would be an unreasonable result; nonetheless, the contracts for cameramen make it very clear they don't own the rights, just in case a judge would rule the law (which is actually rather unclear on the matter--again, contradictions should be cited to Title 17) does give rights to cameramen. In the case of photography, the guy who points the camera and shoots the camera has always been the copyright holder. In the US, copyright is about creativity, and it's clear the equipment owner here exercised no creativity in the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where? It is clear throughout. Only a person can claim copyright, and there was only one person there, the owner of the equipment. The monkey cannot dispute the owner's right to own the photo. Items do not default public domain except in very specific circumstances. Otherwise, the film industry would not be able to hold copyrights over their material. Did you look at the link? In particular, Chapter 2. Many examples have been given to show that you have absolutely no correct interpretation of law or logic. 173.153.5.21 23:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courts love the argument that specific cites don't need to be given to specific questions. The author of a photograph is the cameraman. Chapter 1, section 102, part (a) says that "Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship..."; if the cameraman as a monkey can't author something, then there's no reason to think that copyright protection subsists in it at all; rocks untouched by human hands are not authored by the person standing there when they came free from the mountain, for example. A film is an original work of authorship, and the film industry has contracts with everyone who could reasonably claim to be an author so they hold copyright over their work. In fact, the law singles out films and not photographs: Chapter 1, definitions: "a work specially ordered or commissioned for use as a contribution to ... as a part of a motion picture or other audiovisual work ... if the parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire." Chapter 2 starts with "Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work.", which doesn't help your case in the least, since we're contesting whether the owner of the camera can be the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only a person can claim copyright if that person had creative input. If I let someone else use my camera, I am not the copyright holder. Romaine (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under the laws cited above, the monkey would have to have had 'creative input' to claim the copyright, which cannot be held by the monkey since the monkey is not human, hence the argument that the image should be PD. However this rather falls apart when tested. By the very same definition that the only humans can 'create' works and therefore be copyright holders, the monkey cannot therefore have had any 'creative' input. Therefore the monkey cannot have 'authored' the work and therefore the image cannot be PD. So, was there any other instance of 'creative input'. Yes - the thought, ideas, set up, location, trip planning of David Slater. The only human 'creative input' was that of David Slater, therefore David Slater is the de facto copyright holder regardless of any animals which might have interfered with his equipment. Tonyinman (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The camera owner did not ask or direct or otherwise have any input into the image. Apart from owning the camera. The whole thing was performed without his approval or consent. He didn't deliberately leave the camera to be taken by a wild creature. It was essentially stolen and used without authority. This is not analogous to a movie cameraman or an assistant or an automated sequence. The macaque took the photo at a time of his own choosing. --Skyring (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You weren't there so you cannot dispute the author's story. He set it up. Since monkeys are not people, they have no rights and cannot be deemed agents or a human entity that can accept copyright. Since the guy was the publisher, the owner of the equipment, etc., all copyright law backs him. 173.153.5.21 23:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article says nothing as to his story. "There’s a lot more to copyright than who pushes the trigger on the camera. I set up the shot, I was behind all the components in taking that image." That is from most reports of the incident. You chose the one that didn't contain that quote. Why do you have to be disingenuous? Is it because you have no legitimate legal reasoning? 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the quote from the story I linked to, which you may not have read fully: David, 46, said: "One of them must have accidentally knocked the camera and set it off because the sound caused a bit of a frenzy. At first there was a lot of grimacing with their teeth showing because it was probably the first time they had ever seen a reflection. They were quite mischievous jumping all over my equipment, and it looked like they were already posing for the camera when one hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back - it was amazing to watch. He must have taken hundreds of pictures by the time I got my camera back, but not very many were in focus. He obviously hadn't worked that out yet. Seems pretty clear that Slater didn't set up that shot, he didn't employ the macaque in any way, he didn't even intend for the camera to be used by the creatures. The only creative input, as he himself describes, comes from the macaque itself, deliberately pressing the shutter release. --Skyring (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- This debate can be resolved easily if you replace the "camera" in the base fact that a "monkey stole and shot with stolen camera" with "gun". Would the photographer claim his agency an ownership of the monkey's actions and their products still applied if the monkey had stolen and shot a firearm instead of a camera? Clearly he cannot be responsible or have ownership for any harm the monkey does... But by the same measure cannot claim said ownership simply when it would be beneficial to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.242.174.21 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 6 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you have been living, but people have been held legally responsible for the deaths of individuals because their weapons were easily used to bring harm to others. 173.153.5.21 23:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Animals can own copyrights and other property in the US. When rich people leave part of their estate to a pet, the executor must set up a trust which will vest legal control in the property to the animal's caretakers, which must be interviewed and hired with estate funds or equity, if they haven't been already, but the resale rights revert to heirs after the animal passes away. In this case, the copyright is owned by the owner of the land where the monkey draws sustenance and sleeps, which is apparently a national park, so the Indonesian government is the owner. 104.128.96.117 23:26, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Patently false. US copyright law explicitly states that an animal cannot hold copyright. Twice, in fact. Revent (talk) 23:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Indonesian law, the author of a copyrightable work must be a 'person'. In the absence of evidence that monkeys are legally defined as 'persons' in Indonesia, there is no copyright, and thus it cannot devolve to the Indonesian government. Revent (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This seems fairly clear-cut: The person who takes the image is the copyright holder, unless they assign copyright. There is some ambiguity as to whether the Macaca can actually own copyright, but even in the case where the Macaca cannot, I see no reason why Mr. Slater would own the copyright. He did not take the image, and he didn't convince the Macaca to assign copyright to him. We can reasonably assume either the Macaca has copyright or it is Public Domain. AJF (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - to be able to have copyright on a work, you need to made a creative work yourself, the claimer must have creative input. The owner of the camera says himself he hasn't set up the situation to get the photo, so he cannot claim creative work himself. If an artist intentionally throws an egg on the wall, he can claim that is art, but if a bird is doing the same on its own, the bird has not the copyright. The same applies here. If an artist is making a nest he makes a creative work, if an animal is doing that, the animal doesn't own the copyright.
    • Owning equipment is at itself not giving any rights. If I give my camera for some minutes to someone else, the one who makes the photo has the copyright.
    • Who did the creative work? the monkey, but the animal can't own copyright.
    • Adjusting the photo by bettering the colours, cutting of some parts of, is intented to make the picture better, but is insufficient creative input itself.
  • As there is no human who did creative work to get the photo, and animals can't own copyright, the photo is public domain.
  • This conclusion is derived from a legal expert. Romaine (talk) 23:54, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cameras put on animals have always remained the copyright of the person who put it for the animal. An animal can't claim copyright so it defaults solely to the other party involved. 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Sorry for the photographer, but he admittely is not the author of the photo. Being the owner of the camera doesn't make you automatically copyright holder of anything that is done with the said camera. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 00:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - The photographer generally holds the copyright, excepting in works for hire and similar situations. To hold a copyright, one must be human or a legal person. The photographer in this case is not human, nor is she a legal person. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Though it's clear that the copyright obviously can't belong to the monkey (and claims to the contrary certainly aren't helping), I find it hilarious that so much work is being devoted into arguing over whether or not Slater does own it. I should expect that Wikimedia would always want to err on the side of caution; not on the side of screwing people over technicalities. The fact that there has been so much debating here is prima facie evidence that Slater's claim is at least debatable. And, if debatable, I really don't see the overwhelming need to keep the file until it's been definitively classified. "Well, this may or may not be yours... so it's incredibly important that I assume it isn't until I'm legally forced to accept otherwise. Because of reasons. No, of course we can't wait until we know for sure! That would injure us... because of reasons." Considering how incredibly bad this makes Wikimedia look, I'm surprised someone higher-up hasn't just taken it down preemptively. 139.57.240.18 01:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only way in which Wikimedia is made to look bad by this is in articles that say that things like "Wikipedia is claiming the monkey owns the picture", and that's only really relevant in terms of people who actually believe it (it isn't true). For people who actually understand copyright, this isn't really a 'debatable' issue....it's obvious, if you accept the statements that Slater himself has made as factual. The fact is, the community on commons actually puts a massive amount of effort into removing copyrighted material.
    As far as people 'higher up', the authority for that would be WMF Legal, who have already refused, on the grounds that the material is in the public domain. Other than the legal office, the Wikimedia Foundation exercises no editorial control over content on Wikimedia projects. Revent (talk) 01:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: Slater, by his own description of events, did not have substantial creative input in creating this image, and so is not the copyright holder. The monkey is not a legal person, and so cannot be the copyright holder. In the absence of a copyright holder, the image is in the public domain. --Carnildo (talk) 01:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't true at all. Slater made it clear that he set everything up. That is full creative input. There is no difference between a monkey hitting the button and putting on a timer. 173.153.8.38 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He said the monkey "stole" the camera. That suggests that the money chose the angle and timing of the shot and the position of the subject. Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I don't see how this situation is any different than photos taken from a game camera. In both cases, the photo is/was triggered by an animal - in the case of a game camera, by walking in front of the triggering beam; in this case, by triggering the button directly. In both cases, copyright should fall to the person who set up the camera. In both cases, the photographer, despite not triggering the camera, contributed a large amount of creative work, such as setting the exposure, choosing and selecting the best pictures, and all the work that went into the post production stage. While I am normally very sympathetic to fair use and other copyright exception claims, I just don't see how this one makes the cut. I expect that should this continue in court, the Wikimedia Foundation will lose. - Bardbom (talk) 01:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The photographer may have set the exposure, but he did not choose the exposure for a photo he didn't know was going to happen. Unlike a game camera, he did not point the camera, or otherwise set any features of the shot. (I actually find game photos pretty marginal as copyright goes, so arguing that he had almost as much creative input as goes into a game photo doesn't really impress me.) I went through a collection of photos and chose File:Sibirskai Surikov.jpg to display; that does not give me rights to restrict anyone else from using my scan of Surikov's work. (Also, the same idea would give copyright to an editor for merely pulling a story out of the slush pile, which involves a lot more work then picking a photo out of the small collection the monkey's provided him.) w:Corel v. Bridgeman basically says that post production work like that doesn't a copyright make; I don't see why post-production on someone's photo would be more copyright-providing then pre- and post-production on a photo of a painting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of a game camera, an actual human being took the positive act of choosing where to place the game camera, activated the triggering device, and did so with the express intent of taking photos of animals that walked in front of it. The person 'pushed the button', even if they did so by means of a machine. In this case, according to the description of events, Slater walked away in the middle of setting up the camera with the intent of taking photos himself, and the monkey 'highjacked' the camera for long enough to take dozens of photos. It was not Slater's intent to have the monkey taking pictures, and the camera was not in the same location, so not even the 'framing' of the actual photos was his creative work. The monkey was, also, by Slater's statements, doing so of it's own volition, and for it's own reasons, not as a result of any attempt to induce it to do so. Effort expended in creating the situation in which the event occurred is irrelevant, as is effort expended later in an editorial process.... that is the 'sweat of the brow' argument, and is invalid. Revent (talk) 01:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep As uploader. In this case, the Wikimedia Foundation has determined that it is of the view that the image is in the public domain. This authoritatively settles the matter. This request is moot. Sandstein (talk) 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep - WMF's obsessive pride and ego deserves a legal takedown for their ridiculous stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.32.198 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep See 503.03(a) by the U.S. Copyright Office. This work is not the "product of human authorship". But where does authorship begin? To me, there needs to be a substantial element of human intent in the composition of the image. The Copyright Office gives an example of random, mechanically created floor patterns, which could presumably be affected by how the machine operator sets up the machine that prints them, but they are not copyrightable. The patterns are not of human authorship even if the machine creating them is. Here, the photographer set up the camera but the monkey took it and used it in an unpredictable way. There was a lucky "keeper" among many bad frames taken. That's not a creative work by the human. What would be interesting is if a photographer/animal trainer trained the monkey to take a selfie, but that level of intent doesn't seem to be the case here.Fletcher6 (talk) 02:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete According to Copyright Compendium § 202.02(b): "The term ‘authorship’ implies that, for a work to be copyrightable, it must owe its origin to a human being. Materials produced solely by nature, by plants, or by animals are not copyrightable." Firstly, in this case unless the human being was present, the image could not have been produced. Secondly, for the material to not be copyrightable, the image must have been produced solely by the animal. Since the animal did not posses a camera, did not have the ability to set up and frame a perfectly composed, perfectly exposed and perfectly focused image, and crucially would have had no concept of what the camera was, let alone intentionally 'produce' an image - then the copyright clearly resides with the author of the work. It's origin is owed to the presence of a photographer; and the animal did not possess the means to 'solely' produce the image. The test for whether the image is not copyrightable would be a proof that the animal had sufficient innate ability to be solely responsible for an image - ie without the presence of any humans or contributory factors. Such a proof is extremely unlikely since in such a situation a camera would not have been present. Therefore the copyright must reside with the author of the work - ie David Slater. Tonyinman (talk) 02:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The animal did possess a camera, however stolen. It did set up, compose and frame the photo; any focusing was done automatically by the camera. David Slater had no influence in that. David Slater lacks the sufficient innate ability to 'solely' produce the image, as does any person; I've read it would take at least ten million of us to maintain the ability to produce such high technology as a recent camera. Its origin is owed to a lot of people.
The precedents are clear; if you hand out a bunch of cameras, say at a wedding or an event, and the people who hold the cameras take some pictures, the pictures are copyright them, not you. Changing that giving a camera to a monkey merely obliterates the copyright, not gives to someone the law has already declared is not the author.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) "The precedents are clear". Unfortunately you have not quoted any precedents to back up that assertion. If you are referring to legal precedents - these, if they exist, should surely be tested in a court of law and not Wikimedia - an corporation website.
2) "If you hand out a bunch of cameras, say at a wedding or an event, and the people who hold the cameras take some pictures, the pictures are copyright them, not you." This is a completely different scenario and irrelevant to this discussion.
* BTW, there are places in the world that these kind of pictures can be regarded as ordered or commissioned work in a case of a family or a private event e.g. Wedding and the copyright is automatically assigned to the orderer. --79.182.52.188 04:33, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
3) "Changing that giving a camera to a monkey merely obliterates the copyright, not gives to someone the law has already declared is not the author. " This is specious. As stated, copyright law states the animal would have to be "solely" responsible - and there is no evidence to suggest it was in this case.
4) More worryingly, decisions regarding revocation of copyright (and any other legal decisions) in a democratic society should reside with the courts. The fact is the copyright belongs to David Slater. Wikimedia has decided to try and revoke it, yet Wikimedia has no authority to do so. There must be a presumption that the copyright resides with the photographer unless a court of law decides otherwise. If Wikipedia - an unaccountable and unelected corporation - is allowed to act as judge and jury over decisions of law then it is a very sad state of affairs for civil liberties and freedoms. Wikipedia should respect democracy and await a decision from the courts. Until then the copyright resides with the photographer and Wikipedia has no legal, democratic or moral right to decide otherwise. Tonyinman (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Revocation of copyright is begging the question; no court has decided that he has a copyright. It doesn't appear that he's registered a copyright with the US copyright office, so he doesn't even have that presumption of a valid copyright yet.
The Wikimedia Foundation is perfectly accountable; like any other organization, it can be sued in a court of law. The WMF has declined, as is the right of any individual or organization, to accept David Slater's assertion of copyright, at which point a real judge can step in if Slater choses to take it that far. The court has the ultimate power here, and Wikipedia is respecting democracy by declining to act upon an autocratic claim of copyright from a private individual. If we were to delete the file, it's unlikely there would be a decision from the judge. Or would it be more right for us to decide to sue Slater?
Note that vanishingly few copyrights ever go through the slow and painful process of a court case. Demanding that the WMF sue the estate of Agatha Christie to establish that we have the right to host The Mysterious Affair at Styles at Wikisource would be painful and expensive, and any court would bounce it immediately if said heirs declined to respond to it, as not a live controversy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"No court has decided that he has a copyright." No court has to decide this. David Slater owns the IP rights and copyright unless a legal challenge is made and court decides otherwise. That's rather the point - no such court decision has been made. Wikimedia has no right to revoke copyright unless such a court decision has been made. By revoking copyright without waiting for a legal decision, Wikimedia is flouting the law. To suggest Wikimedia, an organisation unaccountable to millions, if not billions, of people who cannot vote it out of office or change its policies, should act as judge and jury is akin to promoting corporate totalitarianism.
"Copyright registration" for photographs is an urban myth. The copyright resides with David Slater from the moment the image was created. It remains with David Slater until a court decides otherwise. 213.246.85.74 04:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you keep assuming your own conclusion that Slater owns copyright. That is precisely what is in dispute. Wikimedia is not trying to "revoke" his copyright but disputes it was ever extant, because the image is not a work of human authorship. Fletcher6 (talk) 04:15, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Slater owns the copyright until a court of law decides otherwise. Wikimedia is not a court of law. Therefore Wikimedia does not have the right to revoke copyright. Any assertion otherwise would concern me - I like to live in a democratic society where decisions are made by an accountable judiciary and legal process - not a mob rule vote on a corporate website. If there is a dispute that copyright does not reside with Slater, or never existed, then the correct place to argue the case is in a court of law. Would you rather a photographer's livelihood was determined by unelected, anonymous, unaccountable and legally uneducated folk or by a democratic judicial system? Aside from the legal authority, common sense and morality dictates the latter. Tonyinman (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of law, we don't even know if David Slater was ever in Indonesia; the assertion hasn't even been made in court yet. Courts of law don't that way; for a court to take up the question of whether or not David Slater is the author of these photographs, there has to be an actual controversy. The best way for a court to actually rule on the matter is for Wikimedia to use the photos and David Slater to sue them, at which point then the court will rule on the matter and distribute monetary damages as appropriate. You keep using the word "unaccountable"; I don't think you know what it means. Wikimedia is accountable to the court system, and Slater has free reign to take action through that court system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The best way for a court to actually rule on the matter is for Wikimedia to use the photos and David Slater to sue them." Good grief - so the entire planet has signed away its IP rights to Wikipedia. True colours are being displayed!!! Tonyinman (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See US Copyright Office circular 1, page 7. Copyright registration is not necessary for copyright protection, but may be required for bring a copyright case and is required to get statutory damages in a copyright case. It's also available in court as prima facie evidence of the validity of the copyright; should the US Copyright Office refuse to register these works, it would be much harder to bring a court case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quite apart from presuming the USA is the only country in existence, that's simply not the case. Tonyinman (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete There are photographs out there that are the result of accidents by the photographer's equipment. Those photos belong to the photographers who's equipment was used, even if they did not intentionally hit the shutter, or even if the camera was pointed in an unintended direction. If I drop my camera, and it takes a photo, I own the photo. If we are to presume the monkey is unable to own a copyright, it follows that this photo be treated the same as any other accidental photo, the fact that the monkey is alive has no legal bearing on the matter. If we presume the monkey is able to own the copyright, then no one can ever use the photo anywhere because a monkey cannot sign a contract. Either way, Wikimedia can't use it. But the main reason for deleting it is none of this rhetoric. It's that Wikimedia will lose an expensive lawsuit, and that will be bad for Wikimedia. I don't know why the foundation's lawyers haven't intervened and settled this yet, it is idiotic to allow user votes to create liability like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:9:2c00:318:5074:604c:8af3:43f1 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation's lawyers have intervened; they've told David Slater that they decline to delete the file, as it's in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete I think you are missing the point here, Wikimedia and Wikipedia should be used to benefit all people and not to abuse its power; by "deciding" by your own to strip the copyrights of the original owner, monkey or man you are de-facto assigning the copyrights to Wikimedia and therefore Wikimedia is responsible for all of the infringements that might and will occur on its behalf. This might lead to the case of paying a great deal of money from the Wikimedia foundation which I personally contributed to and it will eventually hurt this establishment, pocket wise and publicly moral wise. Set that aside, the photographs would never have been published without the intervention of the photographer, so he deserves a little credit for that; He selected them from all the bad ones which falls into an assembled work which is under copyright law, moreover processing of the photos to the computer even with a minimal intervention gives him an intervention in the finished product. I would like to state that the original copyright law for photographs in the UK stated that the owner of the negatives holds the rights to the photos, this law has since been changed around the world due to digital photography (which still have digital negatives) and issues that arose from commissioned work, but in this case the spirit of the original law can prevail. In my honest opinion, when I read the article about this lawsuit, and I think for every common sensible human being it is clear that the photographer should hold the rights and that Wikimedia is playing dirty here, even a little bit juvenile just on the reason of spite and trying to abuse the law. When I saw that, I had to say something. As an active user of this site and someone who believes in the spirit of the Wikipedia ongoing project I believe that this case should be solved and should have been solved out of court with the common morality of the common, therefore I vote delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.52.188 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 August 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

w:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp; picking paintings and processing the photos thereof to computer does not give the rights to the photographer. Even the taking of the photos of the paintings on top of that was not sufficient for copyright, given the lack of creative effort. Copyright law has strict bounds, and in the US it's not about the sweat of the brow at all; it's about the creative input, which here there was none.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That case is irrelevant to this matter. It concerned photography of existing works, such as this detail of a ceramic work of art, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imari_Jar_DES.jpg . The David Slater case concerns an original work, for which the IP rights are held by David Slater until a court of law determines otherwise. Tonyinman (talk) 04:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That case involved the selection of works and the post-processing of pictures of them, exactly analogous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it doesn't concern the photograph of that Imari jar, as that is a three-dimensional work and general consensus is that photographs of two dimensional works (which makes an exact copy) and three dimensional works (which have substantial creative input by the photograph in how they are photographed) are different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And for the last time, why do you think that David Slater has copyright until a court rules otherwise? If two people claim to have written a novel, do they both have copyright until a court rules otherwise? Must a publisher ignore the fact that one claim is ludicrous and wait until the court case is over to start publishing?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If two people claim copyright of a book the first to publish retains copyright unless the second makes a successful claim in a court of law. This case is similar in that David Slater is the de facto copyright holder as the initial publisher, and if you believe he isn't, you'd need a decision in a court of law - not a decision by yourself or wikimedia cronies. We live in a democracy, not internet mob rule. Tonyinman (talk) 05:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can check the British law here note paragraph 9 - 'Authorship of work' Section (3) - In the case of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work which is computer-generated, the author shall be taken to be the person by whom the arrangements necessary for the creation of the work are undertaken. (under UK law artistic work includes photos, see 4(1)(a)). --79.182.52.188 05:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Works that originate from a non-human source can not claim copyright, so the monkey does not own a copyright. Everyone agrees on that except a few misleading and sensationalized claims on a few blogs. If Slater had set up an automation to take the picture, that would have been a substantial creative input - but he didn't. There is nothing creative about having your camera stolen, and indeed, if a human had stolen his camera and taken a self-portrait, that human would own the copyright on the resultant image. So the monkey cannot claim copyright, and Slater cannot claim copyright, and thus nobody can claim copyright and the image is in the public domain. I feel sympathy for Mr. Slater not being allowed to monetize a work on which he had zero creative input, but this is a simple case of attempted copyfraud. Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The WMF, on behalf of the community, hired a lawyer to advise us on issues like this. That lawyer said that we can keep it. Why do we even have a lawyer if we aren't going to take their advice? If this goes to court and the judge rules against the WMF or the judge given an interim order to take in down, then we should take it down. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 04:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So a Wikimedia lawyer decides the law and not a democratic judicial system? I'd rather live in Stalinist Russia. Tonyinman (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the second line of my comment, you'll see that I said we should take it down if a judge tells us to. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You, and Wikipedia have no legal authority to make a decision to wait for a court decision. The image should be deleted, as per copyright law, until there is a decision otherwise. You are not in charge, the courts are. That's how a democratic judicial system and separation of powers works. That's what two World Wars have been fought over. That's, supposedly, what America is supposed to protect above all else - civil liberties and the power of the individual against corporations and the state. Why do you think you have the right to decide on this photographer's livelihood - who do you believe gave you that authority? Tonyinman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We don't put everything on hold every time there is a court challenge. When some guy sued over copyright of Harry Potter a few years ago, stores didn't take all of the Harry Potter books and movies off the shelves while the court case was going on. In fact, if the image was deleted now, there wouldn't be a court case because the plaintiff would already have what he wanted. The WMF using this image is how we're actually going to get a decision. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-sequitur. With Harry Potter, JK Rowling published first - she was the copyright holder until a court deemed otherwise. The court sided with her, dismissed the challenge, and JK Rowling remained the copyright holder. No one 'removed books' since JK Rowling's copyright was never revoked. In this case, David Slater as the original publisher is the copyright holder, so no-one should be removing that copyright until a court of law has made that decision. And actually, I don't believe there should be a court case to decide a dispute, simply a court case to decide on damages and loss of earnings due to the DMCA copyright infringement. David Slater holds the copyright, and under US copyright law another 'agent' has to make a claim for that copyright to be disputed, let alone transferred. Since the agent would be a monkey, that could never happen. Also, there's no provision or precedent for PD to act as an 'agent' or for an image to have copyright 'revoked' in this way. Tonyinman (talk) 06:34, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To quote your earlier post, "You are not in charge, the courts are." You may have already decided that David Slater owns the copyright, but a number of lawyers disagree with your legal analysis, so the issue is not as simple as you make it out to be. The only body which can decide who is right is the court, and the only way for this to get to the court is to keep the image up. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because lawyers do not offer advice based on morality. The WMF should have asked itself: While legal advice indicates we are in a sound legal position is it the morally correct thing to do in this circumstance? It is a slippery thing where you own something until the moment you publish it. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want a moral argument, I say that it's immoral to try to claim copyright over something when another agent, who is not employed by you or working on your behalf, chose the camera angle, chose the position of the subject, and chose when to press the shutter. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 05:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Under US copyright law an animal cannot be an agent. Besides, David Slater organized the trip, set up the cameras, chose the lenses, decided on the location - only for an animal to interfere with the equipment. It is immoral for a non-judicial corporation to decide to deprive a photographer of his livelihood. Tonyinman (talk) 05:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Non-copyrightable. Also, oppose meta:copyright paranoia. Heck, even WMF took an official stance on this, who wants to be more holy than the pope? Any oppose rationale borders on paranoia level that's close to trolling IMHO.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep 304 takedown requests were rejected by the WMF during 17 months, 304 times WMF said no to Slater's request. This is not the fight of the Wikimedia contributors, and deleting the image certeinly won't stop Slater from taking legal actions (if he hasn't started with them). If the WMF stood in almost 2 years 304 times over the same answer ("no") it is now their fight, in this case a legal one. If the copyright belongs to Slater, the monkey, or if the image is PD, is now up to the court this will be handled. WMF has said "yes, we will delete it" before, if they didn't decide to say "yes" for two years, it is out of contributors' !votation. Tbhotch™ 05:53, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
So the photographer who caused the photograph to be created has to spend his life savings on suing a giant corporation every time the giant unelected law evading corporation decides to determine copyright on his image? If that's the case: 1) All photographers, except very rich ones or those who are friends with the corporation heads, will go out of business since their work will be worthless as IP commodities. 2) Wikimedia will have decided it determines image rights for the entire world by default, unless the photographer is rich enough to take legal action. Is Kafka required reading for Wikipedia employees? I thought most Americans were against such 1950s communist ideals? Even North Korea has more freedoms than what is being suggested. Tonyinman (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to throw around comparisons to totalitarian governments, I'd like to point out that you seem to be advocating a system where people using photos are guilty until proven innocent, which is hardly acceptable in a free country. Also, isn't a system where corporations can do what they want more in line with capitalism than communism? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 06:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ignoring the projection and ludicrous comment - no. A photographer creates an image and publishes it. The photographer owns the rights to that image and derives income with which he pays his bills, lives his life and builds a business. Then a big corporation comes along and says, "Our users have decided in an arbitrary vote that: the image isn't yours, we're going to give it away for free and destroy your earnings, and if you don't like it spend your life savings and try to sue us." That's wrong on every level, anywhere. For a precise philosophical definition, it's 'inverted totalitarianism' and an erosion of the rights of the individual. Tonyinman (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete hello i dont know where to ask to hav photo take down. Please remov as i not grant permison. -- monky 05:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.222.87 (talk • contribs)
If you are the real monkey who took the selfie, where did you learn English and how are you on the internet? Can you email OTRS with additional verification? 104.128.96.117 06:17, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
am use internet cafe. they dont tell how to use email and i dont speak indonesian. -- monky 70.36.222.87 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, the monkey personally said .."ooohhhoo..aaa..ahhh..ahhha..ooh...ooohhh..aaahh"...which translated by google say its its have given wikimedia rights to its 'selfie' ..silly request, silly reply..--Stemoc 06:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep There is no reason to second guess wikimedia on this. They have come to the determination that it's non-copyrightable, and their judgement should stand until overturned by a court. Also, word on the law blogs is that Slater has no case and will lose in court. Darx9url (talk) 06:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should anyone recognise Wikimedia as an arbiter of copyright law decisions? Wikimedia's 'determination' has no authority and to suggest it does places Wikimedia above the authority of the United States judiciary. I agree that a court of law should make a decision, and until that time, the de facto copyright holder - David Slater - should have his wishes and rights under DMCA respected. He has made a good faith attestation that the image is his, and Wikimedia should abide by the law, in this case DMCA and promptly remove the image. Tonyinman (talk)
  •  Keep Copyright is granted based on artistic originality. Since the ape took the initiative and made all the decisions related to taking the picture, the copyright is clearly hers. --Tungsten (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep This is actually a clear keep, no idea why there's so much discussion about it. See the original DR for the legal reasons. The image was not made by the photographer so it's not copyrighted by him. Even the WMF denied a takedown request for the obvious reason - it's not his work. If someone takes my cam to take a photo then it's his copyright, unless he/she/it is not eligible to be a copyright holder.--Denniss (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: This is long past a useful discussion. Let's the real lawyers decide. Apprentice lawyers should look for padawan-lawyers.com. Thanks, Yann (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg

[edit]

 Delete A) Because the present image's uploader (Odder) and User:AJF have falsely stripped the EXIF / licensing info reflecting the photographer David Slate's copyright claims.

B) Because the previous DR of 2014 did not run for at least 7 days mentioned in policy

C) Because there is recent judicial finding by the US court on the photographer's motion dismissing the authorship claim filed on behalf of the monkey

D) Because US Copyright law follows the "Marshall- Goldstein" rule.for establishing authorship, by this rule it is the photographer David Slater, whose idea was permanently fixed and subsequently tangibly expressed, who is now the only possible "author" in law

E) Because the {PD-animal template} is incorrect

F) Because the monkey is not a person G) Because the monkey cannot hold copyright in this image (or the other images)

H) Because it is a settled principle of common law that the owner of stolen goods is entitled to all its profits if it is returned to him

I) Because criminal law also applies here considering that the US importers of this image (NBCNEWS) admittedly paid the UK based photographer for the right to publish a copy, and it was on a copyrighted and paid basis that the image was imported into the USA.

J) Because the IANAL approach of Commons "mobs" can create subsequent criminal legal liabilities for those who reuse the image based on the uploader's false assurances of public domain status

K) Because stripping the EXIF of this image requires explicit legal opinion of the WMF to retain this image (beyond the evasive and misleading WMF Transparency report paragraph)

L) Because retaining this image on US servers after stealing / importing it from UK contravenes the present EU safe harbor principles

M) Because the image source (NBCnews) clearly mentions David Slater as the photographer to whom the copyright went. Mohsinpathania (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: This controversial case should be handled by Wikimedia Legal (WMF Lawyers already decided to keep this file). The only way to delete this file is by a DMCA Takedown. Meanwhile, this still considered a work by the monkey in most parts of the world. Unless you're an attorney, please keep away from this case and this file. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    COMMENT a) there are new circumstances (the court judgment), b) After the 2014 DR, 4 prominent US lawyers opined to Newsweek that Slater holds the copyright and derided WMF's claims. c) I am filing this DR with a view to get WMF to clearly state their reasoned legal opinion. d) WMF's privacy policy does not permit you to violate my privacy (by asking if I am an attorney). 14:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Delete per Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. Commons deletes thousands of files on the most tenuous of reasons. So an image like this with some obviously high profile court cases that still haven't decided copyright on it clearly falls under COM:PCP.
This image harms Commons, as it is unwarranted use of non-free content.
This image harms Commons particularly, because of grandstanding at events like Wikimania 2014. We should reverse this as fast as possible, starting with this image. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of contested Exif information

[edit]
Extended content
ExifTool Version Number         : 10.08
File Name                       : macaca.jpeg
Directory                       : .
File Size                       : 1400 kB
File Modification Date/Time     : 2016:03:06 14:24:39+00:00
File Access Date/Time           : 2016:03:06 14:25:28+00:00
File Inode Change Date/Time     : 2016:03:06 14:24:47+00:00
File Permissions                : rw-r--r--
File Type                       : JPEG
File Type Extension             : jpg
MIME Type                       : image/jpeg
JFIF Version                    : 1.02
Exif Byte Order                 : Little-endian (Intel, II)
Subfile Type                    : Full-resolution Image
Compression                     : Uncompressed
Photometric Interpretation      : RGB
Image Description               : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
Strip Offsets                   : 31116
Orientation                     : Horizontal (normal)
Samples Per Pixel               : 3
Rows Per Strip                  : 4368
Strip Byte Counts               : 38158848
X Resolution                    : 72
Y Resolution                    : 72
Planar Configuration            : Chunky
Resolution Unit                 : inches
Software                        : Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
Modify Date                     : 2013:11:01 13:55:43
Artist                          : David J Slater
XMP Toolkit                     : Adobe XMP Core 4.2.2-c063 53.352624, 2008/07/30-18:12:18
City                            : Tangkoko National Park
State                           : Sulawesi
Country                         : Indonesia
Time Created                    : 13:58:56+00:00
Prefs                           : Tagged:0, ColorClass:0, Rating:0, FrameNum:-00001
Rating                          : 0
Create Date                     : 2009:11:07 10:01:29Z
Location                        : Forest of Dean
Creator Work Email              : www.djsphotography.co.uk
Native Digest                   : 256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,271,272,305,315,33432;0AD1C6F11A03A32B18E47C6BA36B0921
Copyright                       : Caters News Agency Ltd
Province-State                  : Sulawesi
Country-Primary Location Name   : Indonesia
Sub-location                    : Forest of Dean
Color Space                     : sRGB
Exif Image Width                : 1085
Exif Image Height               : 1500
Thumbnail Offset                : 31404
Thumbnail Length                : 6216
Current IPTC Digest             : e65b7116938db3218e2744e7962f48e8
Application Record Version      : 2
Caption-Abstract                : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
By-line                         : David J Slater
Object Name                     : Monkey takes photos on camera
Original Transmission Reference : 517366
Keywords                        : monkey, wildlife, amazing, camera, photo, photographer, park
Copyright Notice                : Caters News Agency Ltd
Reference Number                : 00517366
Program Version                 : 2.0
Local Caption                   : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey afte
Job ID                          : 517366
IPTC Digest                     : e65b7116938db3218e2744e7962f48e8
Displayed Units X               : inches
Displayed Units Y               : inches
Global Angle                    : 30
Global Altitude                 : 30
Copyright Flag                  : False
Photoshop Thumbnail             : (Binary data 6216 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Photoshop Quality               : 12
Photoshop Format                : Standard
Progressive Scans               : 3 Scans
Creator Tool                    : Adobe Photoshop Elements 5.0 Windows
Metadata Date                   : 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00
Format                          : image/jpeg
Document ID                     : uuid:F653187195A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Instance ID                     : xmp.iid:E76B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47
Original Document ID            : uuid:F653187195A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Color Mode                      : RGB
ICC Profile Name                : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Headline                        : Monkey takes photos on camera
Credit                          : Caters News Agency
Source                          : Caters News Agency
Transmission Reference          : 517366
Date Created                    : 2011:07:04
Marked                          : False
Creator                         : David J Slater
Description                     : PIC BY A WILD MONKEY / DAVID SLATER / CATERS NEWS - (PICTURED: One of the photos that the monkey took with Davids camera. 1 of 2: This photo was the original photo the monkey took) - These are the chimp-ly marvellous images captured by a cheeky monkey after turning the tables on a photographer who left his camera unmanned. The inquisitive scamp playfully went to investigate the equipment before becoming fascinated with his own reflection in the lens. And it wasnt long before the crested black macaque hijacked the camera and started snapping away sending award-winning photographer David Slater bananas. David, from Coleford, Gloucestershire, was on a trip to a small national park north of the Indonesian island of Sulawesi when he met the incredibly friendly bunch. SEE CATERS COPY.
Rights                          : Caters News Agency Ltd
Title                           : Monkey takes photos on camera
Subject                         : monkey, wildlife, amazing, camera, photo, photographer, park
Derived From Instance ID        : uuid:073B159C94A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
Derived From Document ID        : uuid:073B159C94A5E01189D3CFCA0FCD4935
History Action                  : saved, saved
History Instance ID             : xmp.iid:E66B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47, xmp.iid:E76B86353443E311B896DCDD405CAE47
History When                    : 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00, 2013:11:01 13:55:43-07:00
History Software Agent          : Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows, Adobe Photoshop CS4 Windows
History Changed                 : /, /
Profile CMM Type                : Lino
Profile Version                 : 2.1.0
Profile Class                   : Display Device Profile
Color Space Data                : RGB
Profile Connection Space        : XYZ
Profile Date Time               : 1998:02:09 06:49:00
Profile File Signature          : acsp
Primary Platform                : Microsoft Corporation
CMM Flags                       : Not Embedded, Independent
Device Manufacturer             : IEC
Device Model                    : sRGB
Device Attributes               : Reflective, Glossy, Positive, Color
Rendering Intent                : Media-Relative Colorimetric
Connection Space Illuminant     : 0.9642 1 0.82491
Profile Creator                 : HP
Profile ID                      : 0
Profile Copyright               : Copyright (c) 1998 Hewlett-Packard Company
Profile Description             : sRGB IEC61966-2.1
Media White Point               : 0.95045 1 1.08905
Media Black Point               : 0 0 0
Red Matrix Column               : 0.43607 0.22249 0.01392
Green Matrix Column             : 0.38515 0.71687 0.09708
Blue Matrix Column              : 0.14307 0.06061 0.7141
Device Mfg Desc                 : IEC http://www.iec.ch
Device Model Desc               : IEC 61966-2.1 Default RGB colour space - sRGB
Viewing Cond Desc               : Reference Viewing Condition in IEC61966-2.1
Viewing Cond Illuminant         : 19.6445 20.3718 16.8089
Viewing Cond Surround           : 3.92889 4.07439 3.36179
Viewing Cond Illuminant Type    : D50
Luminance                       : 76.03647 80 87.12462
Measurement Observer            : CIE 1931
Measurement Backing             : 0 0 0
Measurement Geometry            : Unknown
Measurement Flare               : 0.999%
Measurement Illuminant          : D65
Technology                      : Cathode Ray Tube Display
Red Tone Reproduction Curve     : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Green Tone Reproduction Curve   : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
Blue Tone Reproduction Curve    : (Binary data 2060 bytes, use -b option to extract)
DCT Encode Version              : 100
APP14 Flags 0                   : [14]
APP14 Flags 1                   : (none)
Color Transform                 : YCbCr
Image Width                     : 1085
Image Height                    : 1500
Encoding Process                : Baseline DCT, Huffman coding
Bits Per Sample                 : 8
Color Components                : 3
Y Cb Cr Sub Sampling            : YCbCr4:4:4 (1 1)
Date/Time Created               : 2008:09:25 13:58:56+00:00
Date/Time Original              : 2008:09:25 13:58:56+00:00
Image Size                      : 1085x1500
Megapixels                      : 1.6
Thumbnail Image                 : (Binary data 6216 bytes, use -b option to extract)

Kept: We have been over this before. The new arguments brought up aren’t really new and most are invalid. See here for example.

A) Problems with the exif data is not a reason to delete a file when this exif data doesn't create doubt regarding the copyright status
B) Moot point. 7 days isn’t mandatory plus the debate was already escalating so an early closing is perfectly defendable
C) So what? Doesn’t mean that Slater is the author all of a sudden
D) Copryight office disagrees
E) Been there, done that. Current consensus is that the template is correct and valid.
F) True but it doesn’t necessarily follow that there must be another copyright holder
G) See above
H) Irrelevant. Commons only cares about copyright law. Plus this law is hardly relevant.
I) No
J) Always wanted to be a mobster but this point is moot. Re-users have to decide for themselves if they want to use it or not.
K) No and the WMF cannot give the community legal advice so this would be almost impossible
L) Irrelevant and I doubt this is true
M) Irrelevant. News agents aren’t a reliable source when it comes to copyright.

This has been discussed to death multiple times. The discussion was kept so end of story. We are not going to repeat a discussion every time someone read something in a newspaper and briefly read some laws. Sometimes cases are just closed, despite our personal opinions regarding this file.

Time to accept community consensus and leave this death horse be. Natuur12 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Decap - Excess Amount cover.png

[edit]

I uploaded this, and would like to delete it. I did not realize the rights I was granting. Decapmusic (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Decap Illustration.png

[edit]

I uploaded this, and would like to delete it. I did not realize the rights I was granting. Decapmusic (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Decap - Metamorphosis.png

[edit]

I uploaded this, and would like to delete it. I did not realize the rights I was granting. Decapmusic (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Images uploaded by Natuur12 (delete)

[edit]

Out of scopies which I uploaded during a batch import. Non notable people during non notable events. Please delete.

Natuur12 (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK, innen, Ostwand und Gewölbe.JPG

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Achim55: Housekeeping or non-controversial cleanup: redir not needed, content was: "Category:Media missing infobox template Unnötige Weiterleitung|subpage=File:KK, innen, Ostwand und Gewölbe.JPG|year=2016|month=March|day=6 #REDIRECT File...

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:NRJ Music Awards.jpg

[edit]

not my photo, I dont own the rights Fandemiss75 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Uploader request. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Sergio Kato

[edit]

Several works that claim authorship but are either clearly derivatives or of questionable provenance (no EXIF, Internet image quality, etc.) Uploaded by @KatoFC. czar 19:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 00:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ewerton - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio and shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Circuito Chico - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, should not have been on panoramio, should not have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Patio interno - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, should not have been on panoramio, should not have been trasnferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sogra e cunhados de gil - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Irmao de gil - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pai de gil - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mae e subrinha de gil - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Subrinhas de gil - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Giulliano lindolindo - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Tonkreisel.ogv

[edit]

representation of obviously underage persons; permission by the parents is not recognized 2A01:7700:8030:1209:0:0:0:21 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Permission from the parents is available. If necessary it can displayed to OTRS.--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is necessary. Today, no delition. But what is in twenty years, when nobody knows about it? Also scannt die Belege ein und sendet sie ans OTRS. Dann gibt es dort einen Eintrag für die Ewigkeit. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 21:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Danke Nightflyer für diesen Hinweis. Ich habe es an OTRS, DerHexer und WMDE gesandt. WMDE hat diese Erklärung der Eltern seit ca. 10 Tagen bereits gehabt. Besten Gruss von Dr. Bernd Gross (talk) 08:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Parent's permission given in Ticket:2016030710006348 . --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dr. Robert Blokzijl (RIPE).jpg

[edit]

Only non-commercial use allowed Sonty (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Túrelio: This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use. Under Commons licensing policy, files must be published under at least one license which permits unrestricted commercial use. T...

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Демонтаж ремонтного корпуса трамвайного депо №1 28 февраля 2012.jpg

[edit]

Сомнительное авторство и лицензия, см. https://transphoto.ru/photo/640982/ Dogad75 (talk) 10:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Оставить! Получено разрешение в OTRS от автора фото, Ticket#2016030710013929. С уважением,--Dogad75 (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OTRS permission granted. --Sealle (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Victor.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal picture, out of scope. Eusebius (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per nom Deleted. Mbdortmund (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Victor.jpg

[edit]

Too inexact source. The link goes to a page with over 23,000 images, so it's not easy to find the correct image. Stefan2 (talk) 23:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, by Túrelio with reason "This file is ONLY published under a license that does not allow unrestricted commercial use. Under Commons licensing policy, files must be published under at least one license which permits unrestricted commercial use." Taivo (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ANGOLA (2).jpg

[edit]

SVG available under File:Flag of Angola.svg. Fry1989 eh? 00:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Velvet Elvis Presley painting.jpg

[edit]

Neither the description in the source link nor the source users profile indicate that Ms Dwyer painted the painting or has aiuthority from the painter to reproduce the painting under a free license. There is a signature in the bottom right of the picture which I can't make out. Simonxag (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Jamie Dwyer upgraded file description in Flickr. It is now obvious, that he is not the painter, but took the shot in a Portland museum. There is no freedom of panorama in USA for paintings. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Soumya Bollapragada.jpeg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. (imho rather 'professional') format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Munna Kasi.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as missing EXIF data and 'studio-like' format, Roland zh (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader Kalyan84 (talk · contribs) is serial copyright violator and I blocked him/her for a week. Taivo (talk) 09:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Munna Kasi.jpg

[edit]

The uploader has been blocked as copyright violator. This is his/her last remaining upload. Small photo without metadata. I suspect here also copyvio. Taivo (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ESA Budget 2016.svg

[edit]

This image file was just created and never used. Due to SVG text rendering difficulties I used a PNG file instead for the chart. Daggerbox (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mohamedsayedpic.jpg

[edit]

looks to me fairly out of scope. JuTa 01:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, out of project scope. I'll delete also file:Mohamedpic.jpg due to same reason. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:No penis.png

[edit]

Very likely copyvio, as it is a screenshot of the work "Minecraft", out of scope, no educational uses, not in use. Liance (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I do not take position in scope question, but Minecraft is copyrighted and I delete the file as copyrighted screenshot. I'll delete also file:No tits.png due to same reason. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ta bhuvanendra (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. Cecuad (talk) 04:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, these are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 10:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:All Certificate & Marksheet 8.5 X 11.0 (12MB).pdf

[edit]

Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to edit this file and upload it again Nasef786 (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. But please do not re-upload the file in .pdf-format, or it will be nominated for deletion again. Taivo (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Loma Linda Corte 1.jpg

[edit]

Smaller size than File:Corte Carne.jpg from same uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:شركة فولف للمقاولات المحدودة.png

[edit]

No context Thatonewikiguy (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, context exists, and this is promotion of building company. small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hippolyte Taine with cat.jpg

[edit]

Not PD: André Chevrillon died in 1957. — Racconish ☎ 08:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, undeleted in 1928. Taivo (talk) 12:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:सुषमा असुर २.jpg

[edit]

Duplicaate of images : सुषमा असुर Thatonewikiguy (talk) 08:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, all contributions of Atul Anand TISS (talk · contribs) deleted as copyright violations. Small photos without metadata, found in Internet. Also quality was not excellent. Taivo (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK von NW 3.jpg

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK von NW.jpg

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK von SO 2.JPG

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK von SO.jpg

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK von SW.JPG

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK, innen, Chor 1.jpg

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK, innen, Chor 2.jpg

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:KK, innen, Empore.JPG

[edit]

Unnötige Weiterleitung Benutzer:HOPflaume (talk) 09:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windows 8.1 logo.png

[edit]

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires. Codename Lisa (talk) 09:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have even invisibly commented a warning for those who want to "fix" it, and the warning says that there is no authentic official version of Windows 8.1. I have wanted to delete the image anyway. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader also agrees to delete. Taivo (talk) 13:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windows 8.1 logo.png

[edit]

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires; in fact, it is counter-educational, as it teaches the wrong thing. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination deleted by Ymblanter. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 00:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Windows 8.1 logo.png

[edit]

Violates COM:SCOPE because it is a fake logo. (Windows 8.1 uses the logo seen in File:Windows 8 logo and wordmark.svg.) Because of its fake nature, it is not "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as COM:SCOPE requires; in fact, it is counter-educational, as it teaches the wrong thing. See also the previous two DRs for this logo.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Speedy delete I just removed it from eswiki. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/upload&user=Un+usuario+de+esta+p%C3%A1gina should say enough. - Alexis Jazz 07:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: you could speedy it as G1 (nonsense), G4 (recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus), F5 (Missing essential information, author is wrong) and/or F6 (License laundering). G4 is probably the most fitting. - Alexis Jazz 08:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well. User:KylieTastic had already marked this as copyvio before the DR was started. User:B dash removed that copyvio template. Seeing as this was already speedy before you started this DR, I just put SD|G4 on it. - Alexis Jazz 08:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, per nomination. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Emonroe111 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright holder © Michael Chansley Photography

2003:45:5C6F:1201:C1A6:4E1F:AF28:6C84 09:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, these are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 13:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1507940 274498746037021 2077488223 n-2-.jpg

[edit]

unused private image - out of scope Cholo Aleman (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Also the uploader confessed, that (s)he took the file from band website. Taivo (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Argonaute FS S636 p1040842.jpg

[edit]

There is an identical photo File:Argonaute FS S636 p1040842 boosted colors.jpg with boosted colors Tangopaso (talk) 09:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Argonaute (S636)

[edit]

Photos quite identical to File:Argonaute FS S636 p1040832.jpg ; no use checked ; no information about any difference

Tangopaso (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Autonomic nervous system.jpg

[edit]

copyright Pearson Education, compare http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Rm-kbaqNqBM/TWLLaYHU0aI/AAAAAAAAA48/MTIRLmeL3OI/s1600/DWA+5+spinal+cord.jpg Anka (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wurde von mir selbst hochgeladen. Wird nicht mehr verwendet, da ich ein neues besseres Bild mit anderer Bezeichnung hochgeladen und eingefügt habe. Löschgrund: Redundanz Geo-Science-International (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 14:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Lead, South Dakota

[edit]

The "Roman Catholic Diocese of Lead, South Dakota" does not exist : Lead belongs to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. Baronnet (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per en:Ancient Diocese of Lead this diocese existed until 1930 when it whas renamed to en:Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. Today it is a titular see. Therefore it makes sense to keep a category redirect. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept and redirected to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Rapid City. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Nikita Denise

[edit]

senseless redirection SamWinchester000 (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: empty for years, cross ns redir. --Achim (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pak ta.jpg

[edit]

Doubtful own work, widely published on the internet ɐiʌɐssnɹ 'ǝɯ s,ʇi 'ʎǝH (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aarif Hussain Mir.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Logo Air Vanuatu.png

[edit]

Not work of the uploader, and would be likely be over TOO given Vanuatu's colonial French/UK ɐiʌɐssnɹ 'ǝɯ s,ʇi 'ʎǝH (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Air Calédonie Logo.jpg

[edit]

Not work of uploader, and definitely not free ɐiʌɐssnɹ 'ǝɯ s,ʇi 'ʎǝH (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Air Calédonie logo.jpg

[edit]

Not work of uploader, and definitely not free ɐiʌɐssnɹ 'ǝɯ s,ʇi 'ʎǝH (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prof. Dr. Sedyatmo Toll Road - December 11 2015.JPG

[edit]

Want to upload a new one. Wilzz99 (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, big photo with camera data, used in en.wiki. The file has been in Commons more than 1½ months. Please upload new version on top of old one. Taivo (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Revue Présence Africaine.jpg

[edit]

probably non-free media El Funcionario (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, 1947 magazine covers are not own work. Surpasses threshold of originality. Taivo (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ucup Photowork.jpg

[edit]

Promotional / photomontage without source Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, for collages source and license of every used image is needed. Taivo (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kurchatov.gif

[edit]

Copyright violation. No author, no source. w:Igor Kurchatov died in 1960, so it's couldn'be PD-Russia. 95.28.25.114 12:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader claimed "Author died more than 50 years ago". At first, this claim has no proof. At second, 50 years is not enough, because all former Soviet Union countries demand 70 years. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jeffrollason (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images / no quite notable people : out of scope. Include 1 photo montage without sources

Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kurchatov Igor.jpg

[edit]

LQ image. Seems to be taken from internet, not own work. w:Igor Kurchatov died in 1960, so it's couldn'be PD-Russia. 95.28.25.114 12:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, once today I deleted the photo (then uploader claimed, that the photographer is 50 years dead). This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abi-photo.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Thatonewikiguy as no permission, but I cannot find an external source to doubt own work as claimed. It looks fairly out of scope to me. JuTa 12:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, not sure in copyvio, but unused personal photos are out of project scope. I'll delete also file:Abiram.jpg due to same reason. These are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lenin, 1918 (Photo of M.S.Nappelbaum).jpg

[edit]

Photographer w:de:Moses Solomonowitsch Nappelbaum died in 1958, so it's couldnt'be PD-old. 95.28.25.114 12:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, can be restored in 2029, when copyright has expired. Taivo (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jesusosorio.jpg

[edit]

Personal picture of user, not in use anywhere, out of project scope. Martin H. (talk) 12:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Uda seconde.pdf

[edit]

out of scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, very out of scope. Taivo (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Uday anshuman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal images : out of scope

Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, self-promotion. These are the user's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Artistë shqiptarë në akademitë italiane. Autor Drishti Ylli L.Çika. Katalogu i veprave fq.47 Dhimiter Çani fq.68-71 Tiranë Albania Dicember 2005.jpg

[edit]

extract of a book: http://www.bksh.al/adlib/scripts/wwwopac.exe?DATABASE=all&OPAC_URL=/adlib/beginner/index_al.html&LANGUAGE=1&%250=25067&LIMIT=50 Albinfo (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, here are three copyrights: 1) author of text, 2) author of photos, 3) author of depicted sculptures. The sculptor died in 1990, author of text seems to be younger (lived in 2005). Taivo (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:The 5 labial view variations of Maxillary central incisor.jpg

[edit]

wrong name Ανώνυμος Βικιπαιδιστής (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is not a reason to delete anything. You can request file rename. The file is deleted anyway as uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aryan Rathore.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope. Personal photo used in deleted hoax article en:Aryan Rathore. JohnCD (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'll delete all his other uploads also due to scope problams. Taivo (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Layout Insta.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope. Subject of deleted hoax article en:Aryan Rathore. JohnCD (talk) 13:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'll delete also file:TSD karni mata ji.jpg. These are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:60x15transparent spacer.svg

[edit]

brauch ich nicht 2A02:8070:27A3:3700:91A8:ABFB:8039:621E 13:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Kept, this must be vandalistic nomination. The file is used almost thousand times. Taivo (talk) 19:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hikari kamata.JPG

[edit]

copyright violations. like File:Img1hikarikamata.jpg 122.221.58.1 13:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, that's right, re-creation of deleted content. I warned the uploader. Taivo (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:شعار الكتيبة.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope: unused logo (cf. file name = battalion logo, description = logo). And possible (c)vio [3]. KurodaSho (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 19:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Big Bro.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'öö delete all the uploader's contributions due to same reason: out of scope. (Also most of files have no camera data, but if camera data exists, then always different.) Taivo (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cheena Rape.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'll delete all the uploader's contributions due to same reason: out of scope. (Also most of files have no camera data, but if camera data exists, then always different.) Taivo (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Philip Smoothly.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Philmo 2012.png

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Kaitlyn Ashley

[edit]

only one single file, that page is useless SamWinchester000 (talk) 15:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, single image gallery. Taivo (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sheffield last tram paper.jpg

[edit]

Derivative of newspaper (still within term of copyright) that I'm assuming isn't the work of the uploader; the status of the original source images in turn images is less clear, but needs to be explained. Ubcule (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to come within the acceptable use criteria at 8 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images.Johnragla (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John,
There are two issues here.
The first is that the "acceptable use criteria" relate to English Wikipedia, not Commons. While the two projects are obviously associated, they're not one and the same. Commons is intended as a repository for free images only and "fair use" media files are not permitted here.
"Fair use" of non-free material is permitted at some versions of Wikipedia (although not all), but you have to upload it directly there and state the justification for its use.
I don't think that this particular image could be justified under the fair use criteria as there appear to be plenty of free-use images already there. ("Fair use" only applies where that wouldn't be the case). That's really an issue for English Wikipedia, though, not Commons.
It might be possible to clip and isolate the source images from the newspaper if it can be shown that *they* are now out of copyright. I would assume that the newspaper itself is probably copyrighted (although the fact that it's almost entirely made up of images that were archive material even at the time might mean that this isn't the case- would anyone like to add anything here?) Ubcule (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, photographer is unknown, so no known restore date. Taivo (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Photo captured in panhala kolhapur.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Watermark "Facebook". Taivo (talk) 08:10, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mølleåen and Dansk Cardin and Textil Fabrik building in Lyngby.jpg

[edit]

Poor quality image: Commons:Project scope#Discussion Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, quality is not so bad, but educational value is really weak. Taivo (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Escuela Superior Benjamin Harrison muy anterior al año anterior al año 1915.jpg

[edit]

Archivo falta información sobre la licencia y fue subido por error. York E. Jacobs López (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Photo Shoot FinaStar.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'll delete also file:FinaStar.jpg and file:FinaStar Car-Wash PhotoShoot.jpg due to same reason. These are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stebleve.jpg

[edit]

Google maps screenshot Albinfo (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, yeah, I recognize Google-related logo on corner. Taivo (talk) 08:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Stebleve,Albania.jpg

[edit]

probably grabbed from the web, e.g. from here http://steblevatravel.blogspot.ch/2013/09/stebleva-village.html Albinfo (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Photo(026).jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Photobygk.jpg

[edit]

Probably not users permission to upload. 534 results on Tineye http://www.tineye.com/search/0f9d4e57dfb13e294005648de950e4120df87adc/?pluginver=chrome-1.1.4 Mjrmtg (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Venezia Giardini pianta.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work with no permission of design's author czar 15:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ga07 jpg.jpg

[edit]

useless without a descrption 2003:45:5C6F:1201:C1A6:4E1F:AF28:6C84 16:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gabriel11.JPG

[edit]

unused personal file 2003:45:5C6F:1201:C1A6:4E1F:AF28:6C84 16:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gaetano Marzotto.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Valdagno, Italy 2003:45:5C6F:1201:C1A6:4E1F:AF28:6C84 16:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, I'll delete also file:Statua Gaetano Marzotto.jpg due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 08:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Practica internet2.pdf

[edit]

Out of project scope. Stefan2 (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:WWE WrestleMania Logo.png

[edit]

Low-quality dupe of File:Wrestlemania Neutral Logo.svg with incorrect copyright information. Out of project scope. Stefan2 (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, redundant. Taivo (talk) 09:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:اسلحة لعبة الثابت 3.png

[edit]

A composite of Game images, not own work of uploader, COM:COPYVIOs. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, copyrighted screenshot. Taivo (talk) 09:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Klkjul.jpg

[edit]

This is a video game image, not a photograph, and not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, copyrighted screenshot. Taivo (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by FRVGames (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:COPYVIOs. These are video game images, not photographs, and not own work of uploader.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, copyrighted screenshot. Taivo (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Yasin28 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Lower left hand corner of the images gives credit to a blog, yet the images are said to be own work. Probable COM:COPYVIOs.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, I'll delete also File:کوه بیرک مهرستان.jpg. These are the uploader's last remaining contributions. All small photos without metadata. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mojtaba-khoram-dekaane-sivand (7).JPG

[edit]

A blurry image of something, with a blog address written in upper left corner. Out of COM:SCOPE due to lack of educational utility. And unused. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, file description is the uploader's name. Taivo (talk) 09:35, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:عباس مخبر.jpg

[edit]

Author's publicity shot, see http://bookroom.ir/people/9971/%D8%B9%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D9%85%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1. Ours is of the same small size, low resolution and poor quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:31, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:J-Fan with his fan.JPG

[edit]

The photo owner requests — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanHavoc (talk • contribs) 2016-03-06T03:33:41‎ (UTC)

 Deleted, musician J-Fan is not mentioned in en.wiki. I'll delete the photo as out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:A Beautiful ViewOf Developing Palakkad.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' for the reasons as there are no EXIF data, rather 'thumbnail format', see also File:Vadakkenchery .jpg, File:Chandranagar Palakkad NH.jpg, File:Palakkad Roads.jpg et al, Roland zh (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Our palakkad.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' of the montage, as there are no links to the media used from Wikimedia Commons, and at least two images used ared 'disputed', see also File:Vadakkenchery .jpg, File:Chandranagar Palakkad NH.jpg, File:Palakkad Roads.jpg et al, Roland zh (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, for collages source and license of every used image is needed. I'll delete also all his other uploads, because they are typically small photos without metadata. No response in multiple deletion requests, only new uploads with similar weaknesses. Taivo (talk) 10:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Aathira.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work' as p.e. imho rather thumbnail format and missing exif, as well as media not in use within Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 18:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is claimed to be a selfie. Unused selfies are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Venice Biennale 2013, Venezuela, El arte urbano. Una estética de la Subversión (1).JPG

[edit]

Derivative of copyrighted gallery artwork, no permission of author czar 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Venice Biennale 2013, Venezuela, El arte urbano. Una estética de la Subversión (2).JPG

[edit]

Derivative of copyrighted gallery artwork, no permission of author czar 18:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Taivo (talk) 10:36, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Le pavillon de la France (Venise) (4982039719).jpg

[edit]

Derivative of 2D works in gallery exhibition, no permission from artist(s) czar 18:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no freedom of panorama in Italy. Taivo (talk) 10:38, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:OnAir logo 2013.jpg

[edit]

Low quality version of File:OnAirLogo.png with wrong copyright information. Stefan2 (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:HOAX on his way to Durban.jpeg

[edit]

Unused personal image, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:That's Right!.jpg

[edit]

The watermark suggests that this has been taken from somewhere and that it isn't own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Charles-Maillefer.jpg

[edit]

probably copyvio /St1995 19:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Candies.png

[edit]

Bogus ticket number given by uploader, no match in permissions queues for string "Cliff Watts". Storkk (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 10:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jump NumberOne.jpg

[edit]

Popular image, published before 2016, no evidence of permission of author. Google image search czar 19:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, anyway, not own work. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Герб Гавайев 1896.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Seal of the Republic of Hawaii.svg. Fry1989 eh? 20:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:B 120 99 16777215 00 images gerb Hawaii GerbHawaii1843big.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Royal Coat of Arms of Hawaii.svg. Fry1989 eh? 20:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Гавайский герб 1843 года.png

[edit]

Duplicate of File:Royal Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of Hawaii.svg. Fry1989 eh? 20:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Coat of Arms of Poland (1980-1990).png

[edit]

SVG available as File:Coat of arms of Poland (1955-1980).svg. Fry1989 eh? 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vijay sankeshwar.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cjrk-u10.png

[edit]

Wrong shape, requesting deletion from the creator. Cangjie6 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 21:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Cjrk-u11.png

[edit]

Wrong shape, requesting deletion from the creator. Cangjie6 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, uploader's request on uploading day. Taivo (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mustafa1.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope: unidentified person. Stefan2 (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mafia.jpg

[edit]

On the file information page, it says that this is a "Fotografía de estudio", i.e. not own work by the uploader. Stefan2 (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 21:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Campodoro visto dal satellite.jpg

[edit]

Not own work, doubt that user owns a satellite Hangsna (talk) 21:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bevadoro.jpg

[edit]

Not own work, doubt that user owns a satellite Hangsna (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:One of Starri's comments.jpg

[edit]

No possible legitimate use. Pichpich (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bróðir minn er í sigur rós.jpg

[edit]

No possible legitimate use. Pichpich (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Some of the people Starri has likely been intimate with..png

[edit]

No possible legitimate use. Pichpich (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, for collages source and license for every used image is needed. Taivo (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Seeking harmony.JPG

[edit]

beacuse it clearly says "copyright Scarlet Levy A. Copyright" Joostik (talk) 21:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bath salts..jpg

[edit]

No possible legitimate use. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Feminism.jpg

[edit]

No possible legitimate use. Pichpich (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Yung thug.jpg

[edit]

Personal photo, used for vandalism Mjrmtg (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, vandalistic filename. Taivo (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Personality pic.png

[edit]

personal photo, used for vandalism Mjrmtg (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, for collages source and license of every used image is needed. Taivo (talk) 22:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ptajaymohan.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata. I'l delete also all other contributions of Gokkrishs (talk · contribs) due to same reason. Taivo (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:St George Church Puravayal.jpg

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as p.e. thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Viyyat.png

[edit]

DR started to verify claimed 'own work', and imho commercial advertisements, Roland zh (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 22:19, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Xochilt Totol (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Web resolution, no EXIF. Many of the images look like promo shots. Probably taken from somewhere. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Tonyb12567 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope: unidentified people. Unused userphotos?

Stefan2 (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content.jpg and Download-1.jpeg should probably be renamed/deleted and protected as too vague, anyway.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RK Celje.png

[edit]

Out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, redundant to file:RK Celje1.png. Taivo (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arxiv.png

[edit]

Replaced by SVG version; no longer in use. +mt 23:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, superseded by file:ArXiv web.svg. Taivo (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Marcel.Ferrer (talk · contribs)

[edit]

These seem to be historical photos. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. Correct sources are needed in order to determine their copyright status.

Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 22:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Kimkayndo (talk · contribs)

[edit]

COM:SCOPE Personal images. One, File:Ackimm.jpg, is used on an enwiki user page, but the user has only a dozen edits on that project. DR opened per comment by @Palosirkka: at COM:AN.

Reventtalk 10:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete the unused files per nomination. Commons is not one's personal webhost. De728631 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Arraiapiscinas (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, can be found earlier on web.

Gunnex (talk) 10:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unlikely to be own work. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mittelohr.jpg

[edit]

Copyright! Compare https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0330_EarAnatomy_MiddleEar.png Anka (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Copyright! what? This is just a translation of the other file, that is clearly allowed by the CC-BY license. However, this works is under CC-BY-SA, so the uploader must change the license to CC-BY, and the DR is not the best solution to force the users to comply the CC licensing. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete unless attribution is changed. There are many more uploads of this user that seem to have similar problems. --Leyo 23:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Attribution has been done correctly by now. This is a valid use of CC-BY, the only constraint is to keep paternity which is done by the CC-BY-SA. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:5 SEG (14235505694).jpg

[edit]

The watermark across the centre of the image would make this photo essentially unusable V8-BLC (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:5 SEG (14255941043).jpg

[edit]

The watermark across the centre of the image would make this photo essentially unusable V8-BLC (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dr. Bernd Gross Trabant 601 mit Klopapierhut.jpg

[edit]

unnecessary redirect (infringing name) Kopiersperre (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose: Where is this infringing? The file name includes the author of the photo and the photographed object. Brion Vibber once told someting like "people who delete file redirects should lose their adminship," therefor I oppose the deletion of this redirect, which originally was the filename itself. -- 32X (talk) 14:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Police automobile in Marchigüe, Chile.jpg

[edit]

Cannot confirm author/source as described czar 01:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no publication data. PD-Chile is applicable only when publication data is given or when the photo is 120 years old. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Advertisments in Shibuya Sexy Zone ABC-Z.jpg

[edit]

Unacceptable derivative work. — ξxplicit 03:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:41, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Arashi airplane.jpg

[edit]

Unacceptable derivative work. — ξxplicit 03:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:This is a working paper.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:UROTHERAPY- MIRACLE MEDICINE.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Prof. Jose Molina- ENSAYO FINAL SOBRE EDUCACION.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ANTOLOGIA DE POEMAS Y MISTERIOS.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Hgjhg.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Como construir una grafica de circulo en excel y manual.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Lenaldo Silva (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF. Uploaded in a row on 06.03.2016 for the Brazilian percussion group pt:Maracagrande Grupo de Percussão, it seems that all files were taken from different Facebook accounts. Examples:

Gunnex (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, these are the uploader's only contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ssc-routine-2016.pdf

[edit]

Please see our project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:34, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Mariana de Buritizeiro.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Luciano D' Alessandro.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:RobC.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, not used Avron (talk) 09:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Andy 'Sugar Daddy' Carson.jpg

[edit]

personl photo, not used Avron (talk) 09:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Jesper93a.jpg

[edit]

Unused low-resolution, low-quality personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Mahendra nikam (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope, spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Mahendra nikam).

MER-C 10:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ucraniana ♥ (8433702948).jpg

[edit]

Out of scope unused personal image Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Showmik.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope. Unused {{User page image}}. KurodaSho (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Dramir.baloch (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope

Mjrmtg (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:42, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:FaizRehman.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ocss 5yy824.jpg

[edit]

unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Test 2.png

[edit]

Out of project scope. Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:00R0R 49aTaiXFGUd 600x450.jpg

[edit]

Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 21:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abdul Karim Shaikh wiki.jpg

[edit]

small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abhishek Choulda.jpeg

[edit]

Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 14:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:DEMATTEIS Brigitte.pdf

[edit]

See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Circular silver seal-matrix of Sir Walter Raleigh.jpg

[edit]

This is a photograph of a 3-D object (a silver seal), copyrighted to the British Museum in both the UK and the US Hchc2009 (talk) 08:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vladimir Bukovsky in his 20s.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio (from http://topos.memo.ru/demonstracii-na-pushkinskoy-ploshchadi). 95.28.25.114 09:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: likely copyright violation. --Ymblanter (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Farming-Simulator 15.png

[edit]

Copyvio - screenshot of the game "Farming Simulator" Esprit Fugace (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Maybe en:Farming Simulator is published under free license? Taivo (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Farming Simulator is published under a non-free license. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bührer 6135A.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio - screenshot of the game "Farming Simulator" Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kramer KL 200 - Farming Simulator 2013.jpg

[edit]

Copyvio - screenshot of the game "Farming Simulator" Esprit Fugace (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ronie.haroon1 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope: Commons is not a personal photo album. Subject's autobio article dleted at Ronie Haroon Rajput.

JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Resimm.png

[edit]

Text is too small to be readable. The file is used only in tr.wiki on userpage, which is nominated for deletion. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Apollo Tokë (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF + out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted.

Gunnex (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Limbisches System.jpg

[edit]

copyright; compare https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0614_LimbicSystem.png Anka (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo-Science-International (talk • contribs)

 Kept, derivative work of free content, licensed also under free license. Taivo (talk) 08:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Gennady S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan.png

[edit]

Where's OTRS permission? 95.28.25.114 10:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, tinhy photo without metadata, author and uploader are different. That case OTRS-permission is needed. If the permission arrives, then the file can be restored. Taivo (talk) 08:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kenneth Earl Medrano.jpg

[edit]

User's other uploads have been apparent copyright violations. This appears to be a selfie so unless the Uploader is the celebrity in question this is a copyvio. Can't find an online source but apply COM:PRP. BethNaught (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedied by Thibaut120094 as a copyvio. Revent (talk) 06:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kenneth Earl Medrano.jpg

[edit]

No precise source, no evidence the file is so licensed. BethNaught (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, comes from Facebook. That case own work is not trusted and OTRS-permission is needed. Also, this is the user's only upload. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:אברהם ב. יהושע .jpg

[edit]

The picture appears in more than one site (such as this one) and the name of the photographer is even mentioned on the file itself (so it is not the uploader who created it). No OTRS release approval has been received. It has no place in the Commons in this situation. Ldorfman (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, no permission from Leonardo Cendamo. This is the uploader's only contribution. Small photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 09:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Autobiogram (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The artist is alive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Ziaja . We need an OTRS permission from her

Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, after OTRS-permission has arrived, the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ringue-Sede da Cascalheira.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolution, missing EXIF. Gunnex (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by User:ToshiJapon

[edit]

Copyrighted characters

[edit]

Non-free characters and sculptures, not covered by COM:FOP#Japan if installed in public places:

Paintings

[edit]

Not own works according to the file descriptions:

Literature works

[edit]

Copyvios, as the texts are clearly readable:

  • File:Narusecho.JPG - text is authored by Naruse Town Board of Education in November 2003 (15th year of the Heisei era)
  • File:Satohamakaizuka.JPG - by Higashimatsushima City Board of Education, dated 14 February 1995 (7th year of the Heisei era)
  • File:Kokuonnki 1no2.jpg - by an individual named Sakae Aizawa (相澤 榮) in March 2003 (15th year of the Heisei era)

Yasu (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Chintu822 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Cute photos, but I don't think these are in-scope for Commons purposes (this may arguably be a case of COM:NOTHOST?)

Ubcule (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, also the shirts have copyrighted character depicted. Taivo (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Marri Purushotham.jpg

[edit]

This appears to be a gentleman who passed away several years ago. Unfortunately, and with respect, Commons is not a place for memorials, and there are more suitable sites for this. Ubcule (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Marri Purushotham and Meenaiah are unknown to en.wiki. Small unused photo without metadata, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1938 Autoportrait en soldat 41 x 33, s. bois.jpg

[edit]

Philippe Marie Picard is dead in 1997. Copyright violation. 90.43.153.179 17:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, can be restored in 2068, after copyright expiring. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Creampie.gif

[edit]

uploaded from a tumblr account, doubtful user had permission Mjrmtg (talk) 20:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It is written in the site of the file. If you dont have proofs about the opposite, i believe, honour the "presumption of innocence". --Palu (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If will come some guy and say "its my file and it was stolen", it is for us some relevant information. Not inklink or users history. Dont generalize. --Palu (talk) 23:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but thats not how Commons works when it comes to copyright. "written in the site of the file"; if you mean the watermark on the file, that proves no connection and that tumblr account has been renamed/deleted. The .gif is available on 20+ websites, and the user has a history of copyright violations. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:49, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: by Ronhjones. --Riley Huntley (talk) 03:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:1961 map Trafford Park sheds.jpg

[edit]

Lightly-modified derivative of 1961 map (i.e. within standard 70 year UK copyright term). Ubcule (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files of User:Assirem bou

[edit]
The first image is a non-free logo of an Algerian football club called MO Bejaia.
The second one was taken without permission from the Facebook page of a supporters' group (link).
Same with the third one, but from another group's Facebook page (link). --Aziouez (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Xiangjiangita.jpg

[edit]

Internet file, no Xiangjiangite mineral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuanga (talk • contribs) 2016-02-29T16:53:44‎ (UTC)

 Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:14, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bae.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal image out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 12:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Nya Elementar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A series of recently historical photos (1950s) all claimed as own work, ut the images are of Nya Elementar school. which name is shared by uploader, making this more likely promotional or self-promotional material than own work.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Venice Biennale pavilions and buildings

[edit]

Italy has no freedom of panorama (no interiors either). These buildings, used in the Venice Biennial, cannot be used until their architects' deaths + 70 years. I have architect name/death info from Pavilions and gardens of Venice Biennale ISBN 978-88-6965-440-4 for those interested. The only building I'd expect to be free is Great Britain's (Edwin Alfred Rickards died in 1920). The Italian pavilion's architects died in 1904, 1924, 1923, but the building was modified by later architects, so not sure how to factor that in. No death info on French pavilion architect Faust Finzi. Some other architects are coming up on 70 years, but many of their buildings have been renovated. In any event, buildings should be allowed on a case by case basis. See also: Commons:Deletion requests/Venice Biennale pavilions (United States of America), Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Venice Biennale pavillions, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biennale Di Venezia Pavillon Of Sweden And Norway 2007.jpg. Plenty more for discussion in the Venice Biennale categories (more batches of buildings, non-FoP indoor photos, and lots of 3D artwork without permission of creator). czar 18:20, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Sid1948 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Two images with Ebay watermarks. One newspaper clipping. One copyvio from here. Low resolution and usually no EXIF. Questionable authorship claims.

Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply] 

  The images have eBay watermarks because they are from my listings. The picture you refer to of a copyright violation was taken by me  or someone authorized by me on my behalf as I am the owner of the car and was there at the time the pic was taken.The newspaper clipping comes from the microfiche archives from the Keene New Hampshire library for the 1966 Keene sentinel. You are harassing me with no justification please stop. The repainted Batmobile picture was given to me by the wife of the original builder in the 1960s Violete Robinson.

1956 Oldsmobile 88 Engine taken for me by Car restorer Mario Borbon as was restored body,

You need to provide evidence that the Ebay account belongs to you. Since the exact Ebay account is unidentified, you also need to provide evidence showing which Ebay account the pictures come from. There is no evidence that you created the newspaper in the microfiche archive. Since at least some of the pictures weren't taken by you personally, you need to ensure that all photographers follow the procedure described at COM:OTRS. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, after receiving OTRS-permission the files can be restored. Taivo (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Transport Tower.jpg

[edit]

In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Kazakhstan. Stefan2 (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Stefan2,
I vote against this suppression. I suggest changing the copyright to use the same copyright as the one of [File:Khan_Shatyr_2011.jpg]. Actually, this exception to the FOP on French Wikipedia is subject to specific rules, and the file I refer to (Khan Shatyr's picture) obeys those rules ; if the picture of Transport Tower managed to respect thoses rules, it would be legally allowed to remain on the French Wikipedia.
Kindly, Polypone (talk) 04:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
fr:Fichier:Khan Shatyr 2011.jpg is hosted on French Wikipedia, but this is Commons. Files on Commons must be freely licensed, so unless you can obtain permission from the architect, the file will have to be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Derivative works uploaded by Christian140

[edit]
Posters in Japan
Sungkyunkwan University artwork

First batch: unacceptable derivative works. Second batch: Appear to be contemporary works, especially the latter. Lacks evidence of permission from the artists. — ξxplicit 20:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Oneday.jpg

[edit]

Possible copyvio check ringdoll.com. Check other uploads of the user Dsvyas (talk) 22:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, Taivo (talk) 13:00, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:ApDonda.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio, check other uploads of this user as well Dsvyas (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, all deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ashvin Donda.jpg

[edit]

possible copyvio, check other uploads of this user as well Dsvyas (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Deleted, all deleted. Taivo (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:F5E Tiger II J-3092.jpg

[edit]

quality too poor to be of any encyclopaedic value Anidaat (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The file is still used in nl.wiki, apparently the quality is not too bad. Taivo (talk) 09:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:口唇单纯疱疹.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Bodhisattwa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://www.google.co.in/search?q=%E5%94%87+%E7%98%A1&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSiwEaiAELEKjU2AQaBAgFCAgMCxCwjKcIGl8KXQgDEiWNEi8mqgHID-8FJ6gB0Q-IBdozgC3dM-wxjzrLIfokkDrcM6MiGjAoETNT-hu81EuPUjzOrD0OyAtxxEJzm23fRP0FSGV9p9Ue0I8wdfP_1RidAyvrJabkgAwwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBLJsGYkM&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis7Yblja3LAhXSxI4KHUlrApgQ2A4IGigB&biw=1366&bih=648 Courcelles 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC) LBumping this to a DR because several of the links at that google page look like wiki mirrors to me. Courcelles 22:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: For that reason I disagree to use Google Image Search as reason for deletion instead of a concrete website as source. And yes, almost all the results are Wikipedia mirrors (then, the image belongs to Commons), except this, where the image is smaller. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep, of all the search results: wikiwand is a mirror site of wikipedia, taodabai.com simply takes wikipedia content without proper release, snob.ru published the image a year later than the commons uploader did. Bluedeck 06:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:SQLite Logo 4.png

[edit]

Vector version available; not used. +mt 22:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep: File history contains older logo (uploaded in 2007), and should be kept for historical reasons. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep: Hello, I am the person who contributes to that image. According to Help:SVG one must not delete or list the raster version for deletion even if there's a superior vector version: Once you have created an SVG image, upload it (under a new name), and tag the original raster image with Template:vector version available, but please do not delete the raster image or list it for deletion, as it still serves some purposes — see Commons:Superseded images policy for details. so I think this is an obvious keep. Also the above reason. Tuankiet65 (talk) 01:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:P55 Heraldry.pdf

[edit]

Uploaded as candidates to fix File:The_Grammar_of_Heraldry,_Cussans,_1866.djvu but yhey are not correct. File has been fixed in the meantime. Mpaa (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, enWS has resolved issue for excerpt of page of work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:P 54 Heraldry.pdf

[edit]

Uploaded as candidates to fix File:The_Grammar_of_Heraldry,_Cussans,_1866.djvu but it is not correct. File has been fixed in the meantime. Mpaa (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, enWS community requests deletion of excerpted page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kahn, Bukovksy, and Bikel.jpg

[edit]

Where's OTRS permission? 95.28.25.114 10:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk page. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find there any OTRS permission from photographer. Tom Kahn is the subject of the image, so it cannot be his photo and the copyright belongs to the photographer, not the subject. In order to restore this we will need a free license from the actual photographer or his heirs, see OTRS. 95.28.25.114 13:24, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No authorship information - an 'estate' does not take pictures. --Jcb (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Bongo design.jpg

[edit]

Very low quality, not plausibly useful for any in-scope use. Ubcule (talk) 13:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jocelio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Quite unlikely that Jocelio (talk · contribs) was commissioned by Brazilian authorities to create all these official coats of arms and flags for (+/-) 240 Brazilian cities. Mostly uploaded in 02.2014 (and ignoring for today older, similar problematic uploads), all these files were grabbed from official sites/blogs/Facebook etc. and were declared arbitrarily as "own work" without providing — per COM:EVID — details why all these official symbols may be may in public domain. Ignore exif infos: Mostly overwritten by uploader.

Examples:

To anticipate it immediately. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brasão Forquilha CE.png, regarding the confusion between Brazilian trademark and copyright law. {{PD-BrazilGov}} is decisive.

PS: Ignoring (for today) some files (like File:Brasão de Feira Nova-PE.jpg) which may be in public domain by other means

Gunnex (talk) 01:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: INeverCry 00:30, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jocelio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per previous DR: Quite unlikely that Jocelio (talk · contribs) was commissioned by Brazilian authorities to create all these official coats of arms and flags for X Brazilian municipalities. Uploaded since 13.02.2016, all these files were grabbed from official sites/blogs/Facebook etc. and were declared arbitrarily as "own work" without providing — per COM:EVID — details why all these official symbols may be may in public domain.

Gunnex (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: . .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jocelio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unclear copyright status, per previous DRs. {{PD-self}} licensed uploads regarding official symbols (coat of arms / brasão + flag / bandeira) of Brazilian municipalities, based on arguments derived from Brazilian trademark law (Lei de Propriedade Industrial Brasileira 9.279) which does not apply (see also the long-term misunderstanding reflected in Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-BrazilGov 2, when template was updated). Btw, art. 191 from this law (used as reference by uploader) says "DOS CRIMES COMETIDOS POR MEIO DE MARCA, TÍTULO DE ESTABELECIMENTO E SINAL DE PROPAGANDA: Reproduzir ou imitar, de modo que possa induzir em erro ou confusão, armas, brasões ou distintivos oficiais nacionais, estrangeiros ou internacionais, sem a necessária autorização, no todo ou em parte, em marca, título de estabelecimento, nome comercial, insígnia ou sinal de propaganda, ou usar essas reproduções ou imitações com fins econômicos." = [more or less] It is prohibited to use coats of arms and other distinctive [inter]national symbols in trademarks, establishment titles , commercial names, advertising (...) or use this reproductions/imitations for economic [commercial] purposes.

They may be in public domain only via {{PD-BrazilGov}} = "published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983" or by other means (I ignored obvious PD-shape/PD-whatever cases like this one) but relevant info — per COM:EVID — must be provided. In detail, we need always the date of the related municipal law to determine the PD-status — which is not given (btw, not given for almost all coats of arms and flags of Brazilian municipalities, however they are currently licensed)

All coats of arms and flags of Brazilian municipalities are established individually by municipal law (mostly some years after official federal constitution, often citing the original designers), as also further redesigns of the symbols which [often] are completely different to the historic ones (see also this case, where a Brazilian municipality created his official symbols only 81 years after emancipation: in 2014). Brazilian coats of arms and flags created after 1982 are [if above COM:TOO) protected 70 pma or (if anonymous or pseudonymous works) +70 years from the first publication. See also: http://jus.com.br/artigos/14982/orgaos-publicos-dominio-publico-e-licencas-publicas.

A quick run reveals also that, even trying to apply {{PD-BrazilGov}}, fails for (examples): Obs.: the year of emanicpation is the year of the related federal law, deciding to create the municipality. The official installation of the municipality occurs only year(s) later. So, even municipalities established before 1983 may have needed several years to create and adopt their official symbols by own municipal legislation.

For the others: I don't know (detailed information about the origin of these symbols are mostly not available online or only hardly to find) and for the uploader Jocelio: it did not matter...

Gunnex (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the admins: A lot of files were uploaded as .gif, later converted/redirected to a .png version, made by bot GifTagger... Gunnex (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Jocelio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per previous DRs: Quite unlikely that Jocelio (talk · contribs) was commissioned by Brazilian authorities to create all these official coats of arms and flags for X Brazilian municipalities. Uploaded since 20.08.2016, all these files were grabbed from official sites/blogs/Facebook etc. and were declared arbitrarily as "own work" without providing — per COM:EVID — details why all these official symbols may be in public domain.

Gunnex (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 17:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Túmulo.diogo.gonçalves.travassos.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:FerreiraBorges Gunnex (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, likely copyright violation. If you are the copyright holder, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Pintor y modelo.jpg

[edit]

copyrighted, author died in 1999 Triplecaña (talk) 11:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Author is en:Lluís Maria Saumells Panadés. Taivo (talk) 16:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Novoberdo Castle in Albania.jpg

[edit]

Scan from a book? Albinfo (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, likely magazine or book scan. If uploader is the copyright holder, please confirm via COM:OTRS to have this undeleted. --Storkk (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:PDS3.PNG

[edit]

The image's poor quality makes me think that it is out of scope. Stefan2 (talk) 20:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination and also likely copyright concerns. --Storkk (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Kalavrita - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

personal photo, shouldn't be on panoramio, shouldn't have been transferred to commons Mjrmtg (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Out of scope. --Storkk (talk) 10:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:67 leroya sanford 2015 0020.jpg

[edit]

OTRS-permission from author and copyright holder Nancy Friedman is needed. Taivo (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 10:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Money Boy.jpg

[edit]

still from a video. In all likelihood, the copyright is not owned by the uploader. Pichpich (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know? Maybe he took a still of one from his videos... Thibaut120094 (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Copyright and scope concerns. --Storkk (talk) 10:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Boyuyasikilosunenedir berk-cankat-kimdir-boyu-yasi-kilosu-goz-rengi-nedir.png

[edit]

Small photos without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contributions. I suspect copyright violation. (Depicted person is notable.) Taivo (talk) 14:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On 7th of March ElemdariSeqqa (talk · contribs) uploaded two more copyvios and I added them today into the nomination. Taivo (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination... if you are the photographer, please follow the instructions on COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 17:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vie-ange.JPG

[edit]

Unused Derivative work of Clovis Trouille's artwork. Camille Clovis Trouille, né le 24 octobre 1889, à La Fère (Aisne), et mort le 24 septembre 1975, Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How and of what exactly would it be a "derivative"? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the description of the piece here and on website. BTW, unused personal artworks by non-notable artist are out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "in the description of the piece here", if "the piece here" means the file under discussion. Not sure where "and on website" is, but I didn't find it on the ones where I looked. So, allow me to insist and ask again to which of Trouille's work, or works, specifically, we should compare it to conclude that this is a "derivative". It may or may not be a derivative, but it is necessary to know to what original it is to be compared to evaluate if this is a derivative of it. If the homage is merely in a style and uses some common themes, it's not necessarily a derivative. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Likely not a derivative work, but if not, then it's probably out of scope as non-notable artwork. --Storkk (talk) 17:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Clovis Trouille sans date.jpg

[edit]

I do not think the case for this having a free license can be made with the information provided. The blog post from which it was copied contains no information about the image. The subject lived throughout 3/4 of the 20th century, without more information it is impossible to know this license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Subject died in 1975, which implies it is not prima facie overwhelmingly likely that the unknown (but probably not anonymous) photographer died >70 years ago. --Storkk (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:021215 Today Show.jpg

[edit]

Small photo without metadata, Google image search finds it multiple times in Internet, although not in so big resolution. I suspect copyright violation. This is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. If you were the photographer, please confirm via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 17:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Animation of Rotating Earth at Night.webm.480p.webm

[edit]

Doubtful this is own work; it's found here: [9]. No source. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 04:13, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Best-205-Students-OPT2.jpg

[edit]

Small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Educational value is not big. Taivo (talk) 11:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Diop Alioune 2.jpg

[edit]

dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:MULC mini logo.gif

[edit]

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Erdoganmuzikseskayit1997.png

[edit]

Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Lütfi Elvan.jpg

[edit]

The foto comes from site, where main page says: "© T.C. Ulaştırma Denizcilik ve Haberleşme Bakanlığı Her Hakkı Saklıdır.". Goggle translates this as "© T. C. Transportation, Maritime Affairs and Communications All Rights Reserved.". Taivo (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Visit albania.jpg

[edit]

photoshoped image using copyright protected content: http://ferienhaus-an-der-ardeche.de/reisetipps/wenn-einer-eine-reise-tut%E2%80%A6-fur-und-wider-des-individuellen-reisens--36 Albinfo (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Road to GC.jpg

[edit]

from Web/Flickr http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=104215716&postcount=60 Albinfo (talk) 15:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Experience llogara.jpg

[edit]

according to meta data Zsuzsanna Maksa is the photographer - see also https://journals.worldnomads.com/zsumaksa/photo/38744/931280/Albania/View-from-Llogara-Pass-at-the-coastal-road-The-vast-natural-beauty-of-Albania Albinfo (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Natres1950.jpg

[edit]

How the artist can be 70 years dead, if this is 1950 work? Who is the artist? Taivo (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Charles Eric "Chuck" Dawson.png

[edit]

Unlikely to be uploader's own work: photograph, dated 1991, appears in obituary here. Animalparty (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. -- Cirt (talk) 01:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Подъезд дома Ульриха.JPG

[edit]

A very dark photograph of no apparent educational utility, out of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep But the file is nevertheless used in ru.wiki. Taivo (talk) 11:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: in use, in scope. P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Sebastiano Craveri.jpg

[edit]

Scanned image without any information about the original source - e.g., publication or photographer. --ghouston (talk) 10:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: likely copyvio. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Venice Biennale pavilions (United States of America)

[edit]

Building

No permission from artist (or exhibit designer, if artwork is de minimis)

Italy has no freedom of panorama. In this specific case, the U.S. Pavilion architects died in 1940 and 1970, so the images won't be useable until death+70. (Many of the Biennale pavilion categories have photos of buildings and artwork in copyright, so I'm expecting a number of deletion requests. Previous cases: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Venice Biennale pavillions, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Biennale Di Venezia Pavillon Of Sweden And Norway 2007.jpg) Category:Venice Biennale pavillions (United States of America) czar 02:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Santucho70.jpg

[edit]

Unclear authorship. Listed as "Desconocio" which means unknown. Person lived from 1936 to 1976 so image is likely still copyrighted. Majora (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Argentinian photo from April 1974. Argentina demands 25 years from photographing (this is fulfilled) + 20 years from publishing (this must be proven). Taivo (talk) 10:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination, and Taivo's comment that it was not shown to have been published. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Crimea reaction red.png

[edit]

Данный файл является фальсифицированной копией файла Crimea_reaction_clean.svg В файле отсутствуют страны, выступающие за мирное урегулирование конфликта, изображенные в оригинале нейтральным жёлтым цветом (например Бразилия, Уругвай, Парагвай, Ботсвана и др.). В файле отсутствуют страны, поддерживающие действия России и/или осуждающие временное украинское правительство. В оригинале эти страны имеют цвет пинк и подписаны как «Support for Russian actions and/or condemnation of the Ukrainian interim government» (например Боливия, Венесуэла, Никарагуа, Зимбабве, Судан, Северная Корея, Абхазия, Южная Осетия). Nikolai (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination & comment by Turnless. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vdf-2015.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation 46.218.9.198 09:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio Alan (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Vdf-2015.jpg

[edit]

The "autorisation IGN" is a more restrictive licence then the licence mentioned on the file. Havang(nl) (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Innenohr.jpg

[edit]

Copyright! Compare https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blausen_0329_EarAnatomy_InternalEar.png Anka (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same comment as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mittelohr.jpg. DRs should not be a way to force users to comply the CC licenses. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amitie 10g Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_ear#/media/File:Blausen_0329_EarAnatomy_InternalEar.png

"This work is free and may be used by anyone for any purpose. If you wish to use this content, you do not need to request permission as long as you follow any licensing requirements mentioned on this page."

I forgot to download the name. Otherwise you could see it in the name of the file. I don't know how to rename the file.

The translation of the words is my work but the image is from Blausen and public domain. So it is neither all mine nor all his.

How must an image like this be declared? Can anyone help me to rename the image?

Geo-Science-International

Deleted: per nomination: The image was derived from an image already on Commons (with a 3.0 license) and was claimed as own work and given a 4.0 license. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by NosaraUH (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, uploaded since 01.2016 for an obvious autobiography via pt:Nandayure Harley. Considering also:

Gunnex (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:22163 BOARD 3 DE HAVILLAND 75TH 1080.png

[edit]

permission is required from the museum V8-BLC (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been given express permission by the museum. Mike Nevin, who is a Trustee and Director there has authorised it. In fact he sent it to me. TonicLevi (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Einweihung Buchtal AG - Keramische Betriebe der Reichswerke Hermann Göring.pdf

[edit]

Diese Datei ist nicht frei.

Es ist 1937 aufgenommen worden. Der tatsächliche Fotograf ist nicht angegeben. Es ist nicht sicher, dass dieser Fotograf bereits 70 Jahre oder länger verstorben ist.

Der Uploader gibt an, das Foto sei sein eigenes Werk. Das entspricht nicht der Wahrheit. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: This picture was made in 1937. The photographer is not specified. It is not certain that this photographer has already passed away 70 years ago or more.
The uploader states that this photo was his own work. This is not true. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Venice Biennale 2007, American pavilion (623357277).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Czar as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: uploader req. Taivo (talk) 13:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Housekeeping: deleted as part of prior request. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Otto Schottenheim 1937.jpg

[edit]

Diese Datei ist nicht frei.

Es ist 1937 aufgenommen worden. Der tatsächliche Fotograf ist nicht angegeben. Es ist nicht sicher, dass dieser Fotograf bereits 70 Jahre oder länger verstorben ist.

Der Uploader gibt an, das Foto sei sein eigenes Werk. Das entspricht nicht der Wahrheit. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: This picture was made in 1937. The photographer is not specified. It is not certain that this photographer has already passed away 70 years ago or more.
The uploader states that this photo was his own work. This is not true. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Orlov photo.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation, no OTRS. 37.144.145.16 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User 37.144.145.16 is wrong. He/She/It just ignores the copyright agreement licenses. Administrators, Please do something with this user. I copypast the copyright permission below. Domitori (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of w:Yuri Feodorovich Orlov Date Summer 2008 Source Richard Lovelace Author Megan Dirks, program administrator Permission (Reusing this file) I, Megan Dirks, the copyright holder of this photograph of Yuri Orlov, allow anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted. -- Megan Dirks Program Administrator Society for the Humanities A.D. White House 27 East Avenue Cornell University Ithaca, New York 14853 telephone: (607) 255-9274 fax: (607) 255-1422

 Keep Look the permission field. Taivo (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Seems to be permission Natuur12 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Orlov photo.jpg

[edit]

No OTRS permission from photographer. A talk with administrator who kept it before re-nominating can be found here. 95.28.25.114 13:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - as before. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Otto Schottenheim SA-Oberführer.jpg

[edit]

Der Uploader sagt, das sei das Foto eines Fotos von 1934.

Der Fotograf von 1934 ist nicht angegeben. Dieser bzw. deine Erben haben die Urheberrechte, solange nicht nachgewiesen ist, dass der Fotograf seit mindestens 70 Jahren verstorben ist.

Die Angaben in den Rubriken "Quelle" und "Urheber" sind nachweislich falsch. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:46, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: The uploader says it's the photo of a photo made in 1934. The photographer of 1934 is not specified. There is no evidence that this 1934’ photographer has been dead for at least 70 years. The information given in the sections "Source" and "Author" are totally wrong. Atomiccocktail (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Abraham Yehoshua.png

[edit]

The picture had been in use more than one time in others sites prior to the date the file was uploaded to the Commons ([10]). No OTRS release approval has been received. It has no place in the Commons in this situation. Ldorfman (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did myself the drawing. In the first case ([11]) the picture was used *after* the date of upload (29 feb, I uploaded it the 7th), and it's clearly a derivative work. The second case is strange: google find a thumbnail of it, linked to a page dated 2001. But no picture found. Please check it better: this is an original work done for wikipedia, and I'm the author. --Yuma (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Yuma. That's what we have the release-approval-through-OTRS routine. For keeping the file in Wikimedia projects, please take a look at Commons:OTRS and work accordingly. Detailed explanations can be found on "Granting us permission to copy material already online". Please read and write me in case you have any question. Thanks. Ldorfman (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm. Probably I was'nt able to explain. My fault, I'll try to be more clear:
  • I know the OTRS routine, but I uploaded the drawing minutes after doing it, please assume my good faith.
  • Your google search has a mistake: you was searching images from 1/1/2000 to 2/6/2008, but the upload date is 7/2/2008, that's why you find the image in antoniogurrado.blogspot.com site. That one was published online 29/2/2008, it means 27 days after my upload.
  • this is the correct research. We have one result. Look at the picture, it's a thumbnail, and I can't find the picture in the site.
  • The name of that thumb is crop70x63_1893_vignette_Yehoshua_Yuma.jpg. There's even my nickname on it (Probably a strange way to give Attribution ?) ...anyway, in 2001 I was'nt even registered...
So, it's strange, we can try to find out why google put this thumb in this place, but definitely there's no need to delete. --Yuma (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
p.s: the keywords of that page are "Israël, élections législatives, 10 février 2009, Knesset, Hamas, Gaza, Kadima, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmer, droite, extrême droite", so I guess the article about Golda Meir was written in 2009 (anyway not before 2008: Golda Meir became prime minister in 1968, and the title is "40 years after.. etc") ;-) --Yuma (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, what's the problem in sending a mail to the OTRS team (even in your own language) clearing this issue? This way, the whole issue would be understandable to anyone reading the information regarding this file, and there won't be any problems. Ldorfman (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Own work by original uploader. No need for OTRS permission. You already have his permission. -- Geagea (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Igreja Vitoria em Jesus.png

[edit]

Igreja Vitoria em Jesus is unknown to en.wiki and es.wiki. Unused logos of non-notable things are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Image.peibushongkang.jpg

[edit]

This 1938 photo is almost certainly not the uploader's own work. Can someone more experienced with Chinese copyright law please confirm whether or not this is usable under another license? (Auto-translation: 这1938的照片几乎肯定不会上传自己的作品。更有经验的人与中国版权法能否请证实是否可用在其他许可？) Ubcule (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure that this is from Thailand? Should it not be marked as "no source"? Ubcule (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination & discussion, there is no source on the image. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Smartweb web 5-0 evolution confidential -v004.jpg

[edit]

Unused, the uploader's last remaining contribution. If the file is in scope, then it must be properly described and categorised. Taivo (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rheingraben und Schichtstufenland.JPG

[edit]

copyright? Photo of a grafic. Scource of grafic unknown/not stated. Anka (talk) 10:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Anka

Bildentstehung:

Diese Grafik habe ich an meinem Computer im Paint selbst erstellt. Ich bin Gymnasiallehrerin im Ruhestand mit den Unterrichtsfächern Biologie und Geographie. Es gibt keinerlei Anhaltspunkte dafür, dass diese Grafik irgendwo anders entnommen wurde. Selbstverständlich gibt es entsprechende Grafiken in Schulbüchern und Lehrbüchern, auf deren Basis ich diese als eigene NEUZEICHNUNG erstellt habe. Das Erstellen großer korrekt beschrifteter Schaubilder (als Tafelbild in der Schule) gehört zu meinem beruflichen Handwerk. Ich investiere hier viele viele ehrenamtliche Arbeitsstunden, um die Qualität von Seiten zu erhöhen, die zu meinen beruflichen Fachgebieten gehören, damit Schüler und Studenten mehr von Wikipedia profitieren können.

Das Datum "26. September 2014, 11:09:35" kommt dadurch zustande, dass ich eine vor vielen Jahren von mir selbst gemalte große Pappschautafel, die ich früher in meinem Geologieunterricht eingesetzt habe, mit meiner Digitalkamera abfotografiert habe, bevor ich sie meiner Schule gespendet habe. Ich habe ja zu Hause keine Verwendung mehr für die Sachen. Deshalb habe ich das jüngeren Fachkollegen für die Erdkundesammlung geschenkt und nur ein Foto davon behalten.

Als ich vor kurzem im Wikipedia sah, dass es noch überhaupt keine Grafik gab, auf der das gesamte Schichtstufenland dargestellt ist - der symmetrische Aufbau ist wesentlich zum Verständnis der Entstehung - habe ich mein Foto von meiner mit Ölkreiden selbstgemalten Schautafel genommen, eine Kopie davon erstellt und diese im Paint mit Farbfeldern übermalt und alles schön sauber in Druckbuchstaben beschriftet. Ich habe dafür viele Stunden ehrenamtlicher Arbeit investiert, um das hier zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Ich muss mir weitere respektlose Behandlung ausdrücklich verbitten. Sie erfüllen den Tatbestand der falschen Verdächtigung. 

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsche_Verd%C3%A4chtigung

Geo-Science-International

Wenn ich hier wirklich ein Bild, dass originär von Dir stammt erwischt haben sollte, tut mir das leid. Es wäre aber wohl das erste. Bei allen anderen hast Du erst zugegeben, dass sie nicht von Dir sind, als es Dir nachgewiesen wurde. Anka (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Rheingraben und Schichtstufenland.JPG

[edit]

Das jpg kann gelöscht werden. Ich habe dasselbe Bild als png hochgeladen und eingefügt. Sciencia58 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: superseded by File:Rheingraben und Schichtstufenland.png. P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Ferlinghetti meets Immagine&Poesia representatives.jpg

[edit]

Thanks to Hangsna for pointing this out on the Village pump. This is an unacknowledged photo montage. That is certainly Ferlinghetti in the middle, and he may well have been photographed in the Caffe Trieste in North Beach, San Francisco (practically down the block from City Light Books), but I the other two are not part of the same photo. There is an absolute telltale at the young man's right elbow, and another where the woman's right shoulder meets the purple shirt behind her. File:Ferlinghetti at Caffe Trieste.jpg is the same photo of Ferlinghetti, but with a different person partly visible at Ferlinghetti's left (our right). Just part of a shoulder, but entirely different clothes. To put it mildly, I think the uploader has some explaining to do. Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its being used as "honour by associasion" in (i guess many of) these 66 articles. This article is already deleted on ENWP, FRWP and ITWP. See DR on ENWP here. Perhaps the image should be keept until the article is resolved on other languages? Can something be done to this globally? /Hangsna (talk) 21:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Hoaxes are fine if in scope, but unacknowledged hoaxes aren't in scope. Putting this in en:wp terms, for people not familiar with Commons — en:WP:HOAX says "Wikipedia does have articles about notable hoaxes describing them as hoaxes, such as Piltdown Man or the War of the Worlds broadcast. This is completely different from an article presenting a hoax as factual." In the same way, we can have images about hoaxes, whether images like File:Piltdown gang (dark).jpg (depicting a hoax being conducted) or File:The Commissar Vanishes 2.jpg (a person removed; see original version), but in both cases, the hoax was committed by someone not working on Commons, and our digital files merely document those hoaxes. This image, however, presents a hoax as factual; such images easily fail the COM:SCOPE requirement of being "realistically useful for an educational purpose", because no person who knows this to be a hoax will ever use it thus. Nyttend (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete I can not see any relevance to the hoax in this case, especially since it seems the image was uploaded in bad faith. --Sebari (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe I am not expert in uploading photos on wiki, but the photo was taken in San Francisco in 2013 where Lawrence Ferlinghetti met the respresentatives of IMMAGINE & POESIA at Caffè Trieste. I don't think it can be called a hoax, being an improvement of the original photo that, according to my opinion, was not professional enough for uploading on wikipedia. The meeting was also reported on Italian newspaper La Stampa. [[12]]. I see that now the photo has been cut. If you want to see other original photos of the same series I have others to show. Please suggest what to do--Angler45 (talk) 10:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding persons which wasn't there to a photo is not considerable as "improvement of the original photo". You are welcome to improve colour balance, noise, light, contrast etc. and such photos upload to Commons. --KuboF (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Angler45: , if you have legitimate photos that show these people being with Ferlinghetti at Caffe Trieste, those would probably be in scope. But a photomontage that purports to show these people flanking Ferlinghetti, but actually shows no such thing, is not in scope and in my opinion, given that you didn't identify it as such, casts doubt on whether you understand the concept of documentary photography. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep That it's a photomontage is not a valid reason to delete the picture. It's enough to put it into the "fake" category.--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete Hoax related to cross-wiki-Immagine&Poesia-spam, no relevance. K9re11 (talk) 11:58, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete eo: Fotomontaĝo prezentita kiel reala foto kaj uzata en pluraj Vikipedioj (supozeble) por ŝajnigi gravecon ne taŭgas por komunejo. --KuboF (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete, apparently part of spamming campaign. It is quite remarkable that @Angler45: doesn't present the original photo!? --Morten Haugen (talk) 07:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Orland: File:Ferlinghetti at Caffe Trieste.jpg is clearly a crop of the original photo of Ferlinghetti at the Caffe Trieste. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Jmabel: ; yes I can see that. But I'm relating to @Angler45: 's statement "If you want to see other original photos of the same series I have others to show." Please bring them on, Angler45!
        There is also another matter here that is interesting to clear out. Angler45 refers to a piece in the newspaper La Stampa. I do not read italian, but according to google translate, the article in La Stampa describes a meeting between only Chiarelli and Ferlinghetti, with no mention of the "movement" IMMAGINE & POESIA. Whether Chiarelli and some other italian person really met Ferlinghetti i 2013 does anyway not establish any notability for the movement as such. It is more interesting that Angler45 believed that this photo could be such an important evidence about I&P that he had to "improve" it. Bw --Morten Haugen (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is getting more and more interesting. @Angler45: have added a new picture today - File:L.Ferlinghetti and Lidia.jpg, and is replacing this old one with the new. The man to the right is removed (who put him there and why in the first place?); but to me this new one also looks like photoshop editing. Smarter people than me should judge about that. --Morten Haugen (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was about to say about the new file myself. If it is also "an improvement of the original photo", then this clearly shows that the user cannot be trusted in; the image states "Lawrence Ferlinghetti meets Lidia Chiarelli...", as it would be a real photo. Not a word is said about any improvement of the image. If this is also a hoax, then I think the user should be blocked. I might be wrong, but with all this cross-wiki-spamming and photoshopping, I would not be surprised of another hoax. K9re11 (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Presentation1.jpg

[edit]

Overwritten file: two in one. One of them is out of scope and the other looks too old for the PD-self claim to be valid. Stefan2 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Road signs of East Germany

[edit]

This was made by User:Jermboy27. We do not need anything of this guy. Mediatus (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the future you are allways my first contact, if your friend reports again here. And he will do it. Mediatus (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Although "created by a banned user" is usually not a reason to delete anything, galleries created by Jermboy and his socks are exeption. Jermboy mixes truth and fantasy. He invents non-existent road signs. It's better to delete his galleries. Taivo (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I make correct categories for the German road signs, because I have made all the signs by my own :) Look here: Road signs of the German Democratic Republic in 1971 and Road signs of the German Democratic Republic in 1964. And by the way: Jermboy27 makes almost only senseless things. We must stop him today at the German Wikipedia again: [13]. And now look, what he said to me at the German Wikipedia: [14]. I say: we do not need people like that and we do not need things from this person. Mediatus (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S: When you make a category at Commons, you must write English. Loot at my categories and now look to this category here. That is duty of care (Sorgfaltspflicht, we say in Germany). But Jermboy does not care. Mediatus (talk) 13:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Delete Apparently we cannot trust this user. --PierreSelim (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amitie said "Banned user has never been a valid reason for deletion". So in general he'd suggest keeping uploads of Russavia via one of his socks. Quite interesting. Don't misunderstand: I personally don't like global bans as they sound like invitations for using socks. But IMO Jermboy27 is a twit (look here if you didn't already) who enjoys giving us additional work we neither like nor need, so I agree with Mediatus and say  Delete. Jermboy27 should be awarded "Master-of-Hoaxes" and any upload of one of his socks should be deleted speedily without DR. --Achim (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, delete the Gallery and recreate again, will be exactly the same. There is no hoax, just a gallery with valid files, so this si still no valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: In future nominations please separate the issue at hand from the wider issue as much as possible, some of the info here is unnecessarily linking to conflict. Aside from that this page seems not trusthworthy enough (suspected hoax) and as such deletion is the best option. --Basvb (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Hjalmar (talk · contribs)

[edit]

A gallery of images claimed "own work" but apparently too old, and most likely the works of others, as in the book cover, historical images, cartoons and so on. All COM:COPYVIOs without more information and accurate creator information.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 07:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Incorrect attributions. Some might be PD-old, but that should be proven and correct attribution should be provided. --Basvb (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Val Kahl 2015.jpg

[edit]

Low-res, no exif, unlikely to be own work. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also File:Val Kahl in 2016.png.
 Comment I talked with the uploader on IRC, she asserts that she took the photo. Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - she could send a file with EXIF to OTRS to show that she took it. --Jcb (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Port de Saint Tropez.JPG

[edit]
See also: Commons:Deletion requests/File:1938 Autoportrait en soldat 41 x 33, s. bois.jpg.

Philippe Marie Picard is dead in 1997. Copyright violation. 90.43.153.179 17:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The work is licensed with a free license. Apparently, the Commons account has been verified as the account of the owner of the copyright, as accepted by an agent of OTRS in 2013 (2013111210013534). So, the uploads of the works by this account should be fine. Now, OTRS communications often need to be double checked to see if they were properly interpreted. If someone wants to dispute the uploader's identity or copyright, the thing to do, before nominating files for deletion, would be to ask an OTRS agent to review the communication. If it is found to be sufficient to identify the uploader as the owner of the copyright on all the works of the painter, it could be a good idea for an OTRS agent to mention it on that user's page so that it is easier to find that mention. If it is found to be insufficient but it can be fixed, the sender should be contacted to fix it. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment There is no OTRS on this page regardless of the foregoing paragraph. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ticket:2013111210013534 is indeed related to this. It's in French so I can't check whether it validates this image. I will ask for another OTRS-volunteer to check this. Basvb (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per Jcb. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Néstor Leonel Scotta - Revista El Cali.JPG

[edit]

Although text of this article is taken from es.wikipedia, there is no source of a photo of footballer in this article. (additional info: photo is copyrighted: http://deportivocali.co/nestor-leonel-el-tola-scotta/). Smooth_O (talk) 18:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep The source of the photo is the magazine itself. It is the official magazine of the team, so the owner of the rights. They mixed it and created a derivated work with a Creative Commons Licence. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 21:17, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Do you have a permission that magazine is licensed with a CC license? --Smooth_O (talk) 09:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Every derivated work of a Share-Alike Content inherits the licence. Doesn't matter which was the original license, if you use a CC-SA content and mixed something with it, the new file or content still have a free licence. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 02:22, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment It's ok for text, but please add source and author of this photo with proof that it also have a free license. --Smooth_O (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep - "Every derivated work of a Share-Alike Content inherits the licence" -- Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 23:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - No proof that this photo is not copyrighted. See here: http://deportivocali.co/nestor-leonel-el-tola-scotta/ --Smooth_O (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, maybe the photo was copyrighted before and the owner was the football team, but it was mixed with a Share-Alike content and now has a free lincence. --Sahaquiel - Hast du eine Frage? 14:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - The entire article of the magazine is a derivated work of a original work with a CC-licence, thus the derivated work also is CC-licenced under the terms of the original work.
The original work is a Wikipedia text under the licence CC-BY-SA 3.0. The part of Share-Alike is the important here, see[15]: "Share Alike:—If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same, similar or a compatible license."-- Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 00:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: You misunderstand the terms of a CC-BY-SA license. You can include a CC-BY-SA work in a copyrighted magazine, for example, without having to license the whole magazine as CC-BY-SA. The magazine is a "Collective Work" under the license and is specifically exempt from SA. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Zero no Tsukaima logo.png

[edit]

Stylized text, so definitely not PD-textlogo. ptjackyll (leave a message) 10:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about this. Would you call a stroked text "stylized"? This is a very basic thing. -- deerstop (*•̀ᴗ•́*). 09:27, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the text is "in two lines", is colored and has some white border which, I belvieve, is an expression of creative activity. By the fact that it looks exactly the same as official logo I can say that it's not own work without threshold of originality. Very similar situations were e.g. here and here. ptjackyll (leave a message) 11:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, I nominated those logos for deletion mostly because they contained original designs, such as moons. Is white border really something creative? There are fonts that have bordered letters, you know. It's a very basic thing, just like colour. -- deerstop (*•̀ᴗ•́*). 12:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: PD-textlogo. --Jcb (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/03/06&oldid=193376061"