Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/03/17
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
Files uploaded by Eshtiyak Fahim (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obviously copyrighted anime behind the cover page.
- File:Saohntyhfj.pdf
- File:Saztheview.pdf
- File:Lvhtel.pdf
- File:Jdughfhj.pdf
- File:Jdugh.pdf
- File:Studiohkkf.pdf
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violations. --JuTa 06:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope 2602:306:CDB2:4AF0:7675:48FF:FE59:9FC5 02:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Housekkeping. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation; the photo is copy from this website: http://nb.people.com.cn/n/2015/0624/c365610-25349655.html 122.90.93.63 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
copyvio http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/michael-mccarron-of-the-montreal-canadiens-poses-for-his-news-photo/491196140 Supertoff (talk) 05:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: copyvio http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/news-photo/michael-mccarron-of-the-montreal-canadiens-poses-for-his-news-photo/491196140
Very unlikely to be own works, user already warned and blocked for copyvios. All lot of image already speedy deleted exemple File:Brestian.jpg coming from http://www.hram.by/churches/view/93/ but the user change the color and sometimes add a watermark with it's user name before to upload here. Delete all per PCP.
- File:Relihijna-ukrajina.jpg.png
- File:Vostrava4.jpg
- File:Vostrava3.jpg
- File:Vostrava1.jpg
- File:Vostrava2.jpg
- File:Cerkiew-palonka.jpg
- File:Ikonostas-palonka.jpg
- File:Lubch.jpg
- File:Lubch1.jpg
- File:Zelwa.jpg
- File:Zelwa1.jpg
- File:Prylisny.jpg
- File:Prylisny1.jpg
- File:Wałkawysk.jpg
- File:Valovka1.jpg
- File:Krasnesiolo4.jpg
- File:Krasnesiolo3.jpg
- File:Krasnesiolo2.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy close. All images are copyright violations. --Érico (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam! Spam! Bilderling (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: Advertisement
Out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Saeeddamghanian. --Riley Huntley (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Bitofvacation). MER-C 10:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Christian Ferrer: Copyright violation: Tineye finds the image in three different stock photo sites. Copyrighted there.
Copyright infringement. Jardel @lves talk 05:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Érico (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mdminhajalam1990 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://images.indianexpress.com/2014/10/arvind-med.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Denniss (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Image appears to be used for self-promotion only. I don't see any educational value for it. It even includes a prominent logo/watermark. No licence. Not used anywhere. JIP (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation; see Commons:Licensing: from google
Files uploaded by Shineanselmo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violations. --JuTa 10:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
{{Copyvio |1= |source= }} 109.11.31.27 22:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Copyvio is invalid; falls under COM:TOO. Delete out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Ellin Beltz. --Riley Huntley (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Ramesh4568
[edit]Unused out of scope personal images. --Riley Huntley (talk) 23:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Taivo. --Riley Huntley (talk) 20:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Please delete Category:Ford Falcon (XD) in V8 Supercar. GTHO (talk) 09:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Why? You haven't provided any rationale for deletion. JIP (talk) 19:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why the nominator wants the category deleted, but I see that it currently is empty, and empty categories are usually deleted speedily. I don't know if the category is supposed to be empty, though. I see that the nominator has used Help:Cat-a-lot to remove a lot of files from the category. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The Ford Falcon (XD) never raced in V8 Supercars. The XD raced in top-level Australian touring car racing from 1980 to 1982; V8 Supercars did not start until 1997. – Kytabu 02:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know why the nominator wants the category deleted, but I see that it currently is empty, and empty categories are usually deleted speedily. I don't know if the category is supposed to be empty, though. I see that the nominator has used Help:Cat-a-lot to remove a lot of files from the category. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: empty cat. --JuTa 21:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal image. Commons is not Facebook. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Commons:Deletion requests/File:MISTE NATCHUECK.jpg: Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal image. Commons is not Facebook. --
The source does not attribute this image to the Department of Justice, and it does not appear on the DoJ's website. How do we know it came from the DoJ and furthermore that it was taken by an employee of the federal government? czar 00:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete, unless we can confirm more information the source info itself. FYI, there are now plenty of free-use licensed images and a video file, hopefully soon to be a 2nd video file, at Category:Merrick Garland. These new images are products of the federal government as made directly by The White House; Executive Office of the President of the United States. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 02:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)- As a point of information, the image is credited to the DC Appeals court via AP at [1], and this [2] does as well. I wasn't able to dig up pre-nomination uses of that image via TinEye or Google Reverse Image Search. Do with this data as you will. --Joe Decker (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep. Per Associated Press via National Public Radio article (archived) and ABC News via KSFY (archived) — this image is credited to author: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. As a product of the United States Federal Government — this image is public domain. Many thanks to Joe Decker (talk · contribs) for the research on this image. -- Cirt (talk) 01:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination [3] and [4] credit DoJ too czar 02:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Proposer withdrew the nomination. Érico (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'posing/profiling' or potentially non-free content, and doubtful educational usefulness, hence out of scope Wikimedia CommonsRoland zh (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Riley Huntley, please help me fix this. I represent the person and I have sent the email at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, [Ticket#2016031510004727]. I have provided all the necessary declaration. If you wish to cross verify please help me with your email id, I will submit to you for cross verification, I have a COI and I have declared the same. This image belongs to our chairman and he and his company has appointed me and has authorised me legally to represent them on digital platforms. Please help, thanks in advance. --Piyushratnu (talk) 12:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Dear Riley Huntley,The content of the email sent to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org is as follows:
Dear Wikimedia Team, I hereby affirm that I Piyush Ratnu represent Mr. Shrikant Bhasi, Chairman – Carnival Group, India, the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the image File:Shrikant Bhasi-1.jpg as shown in the attached image. I agree to publish the above-mentioned content under the following free license: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International.[5] I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I am aware that the copyright holder always retains ownership of the copyright as well as the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be claimed to have been made by the copyright holder. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project. Piyush Ratnu Appointed representative of Mr. Shrikant Bhasi Date: 15 March 2016 Place: Mumbai, India Uploaded Image Link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Shrikant_Bhasi_1.png Intended to be added on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrikant_Bhasi
I can submit the declaration authorisation letter signed by the authority for your cross verification, it is on the letter head with the approval seal and authorised signatory. Please consider.--Piyushratnu (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy closure; concerns in nomination have been addressed. --Riley Huntley (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope — 0x010C ~talk~ 18:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete- A speedy deletion tag most likely will work here. In veritas (talk) 00:06, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope does not qualify for speedy deletion. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from photographer Tatyana Feoktistova (look description) is needed. Also small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyvio [5]. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Luiz Mario 50 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Uploaded on 17.03.2016 by an "all-he-can-get"-grabber for pt:Aurélio Augusto, including copyvios (for File:PDT 1990.jpg) from http://www.rdnews.com.br/blog-do-romilson/resgate-historico/brizola-concede-entrevista-ao-lado-de-dante-mario-e-joaquim/23815 (2010, credit: "Foto: Demóstenes Milhomem", Todos os Direitos Reservados - RDNEWS) = http://www.rdnews.com.br/uploads/Image/Resgate%20historico/brizola_rdnews.jpg etc.etc., mostly sourced with "site" (= grabbed somewhere from Internet), including newspaper scans like File:Primeiro encontro nacional de vereadores contra o racismo 1995.jpg, book covers (File:Hibisco o mundo invisível.jpg) etc.
- File:Primeiro encontro nacional de vereadores contra o racismo 1995.jpg
- File:Aurélio Augusto.jpg
- File:Rio Claro - 1981.jpg
- File:PDT 1990.jpg
- File:Chapa Soberania Legislativa - 1996.jpg
- File:Lançamento da primeira mostra cuiabana de teatro.jpg
- File:Cuiabá Vôlei Clube - Charge.jpg
- File:Prêmio no Centro Cultural Africano.jpg
- File:Hibisco o mundo invisível.jpg
- File:Posse Sec. de Esporte e Cidadania.gif
Gunnex (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Edite Paleontological-evidences-of-Sabaragmu-basin-Interpret-Harbor-Life-of-Plant-Earth-1.docx.pdf
[edit]OTRS-permission from author Aravinda ravibhnau is needed. Taivo (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Plus permission from authors of other works appearing in the document. Plus an explanation of how this is within Commons' project scope, particularly Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unclear copyright statut+questionable notability. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
fantasy edition of a classic, no pedagogic use Pippobuono (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination out of scope photomontage. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Shadzofblue (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Six Lane Highway.jpg
- File:M2 Motorway Pakistan Near Lahore.jpg
- File:Built in 1997.jpg
- File:Cop4.jpg
- File:Motorway Police.jpg
- File:M1 Motorway Near Islamabad.jpg
- File:M1 Pakistan View.jpg
- File:Peshawar-Lahore Motorway.jpg
- File:M1 Connecting Peshawar and Islamabad.jpg
- File:M2 Motorway Near Peshawar.jpg
- File:Islamabad-Peshawar Motorway Near Charsadda, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa.jpg
- File:New-Islamabad-Airport-Marvallous-Design.jpg
- File:New Islamabad Airport.jpg
- File:Gawadar-Hoshab Section.jpg
- File:Lahore Metrobus Stations.jpg
- File:Metro-bus-project-in-lahore.jpg
- File:Centaurus Station.jpg
Falsified licensing data provided by uploader. These files were uploaded en masse by a single purpose throwaway account, which was utilized to parlay copyright violations to Wikipedia. There is also reason to believe this account is operated by user who is currently banned on the English Wikipedia, and CU administrators have been notified of this concern. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvios from the web (exemple from [6] or [7] or from elsewhere). Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kanikahotels (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images uploaded via enwiki for COI spam purposes. You can reverse Google these files; licensing is not trustworthy, how do we know the responsible employee was authorised to license these images?
- File:Alexander The Great Beach Hotel Pool.jpg
- File:Alexander The Great Beach Hotel Rooms.jpg
- File:Alexander The Great Beach Hotel.jpg
- File:Alexander logo.png
BethNaught (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, copyvios from the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --PierreSelim (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Túrelio (talk) 08:55, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
requesters subpage 최광모 (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Req by user. --Achim (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
user gallery 최광모 (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Requested by author. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time , please use {{Speedy}}. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Maxi Cardaci (talk · contribs)
[edit]I see some issues here.
Maximarca.jpg is shown on maxicardaci.com/ as "front page".
By googling the username, there are some results pointing so some kind of spanish-speaking celebrity, who, according to the image search, looks a lot like the woman on the second picture. So, I guess that we need some kind of official account verification, as it is possible that some fan is impersonating the celebrity, but I do not know if there is any known processus for it (as there is on the German Wiki). (Ah, and BTW, the educational usability should also be questioned). Regards,
Grand-Duc (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS required. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, most likely cropped, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Skyzmma/logs (with similar deleted uploads regarding pt:Anderson Silva, a Brazilian mixed martial artist). And who is "NoContestProductions" (author), considering uploaded by Skyzmma (talk · contributions · Statistics) (last remaining file) Gunnex (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Why ?
Bonjour, cette photo est ma propriété. J'aimerais avoir plus de précisions sur les raisons de cette demande de supression. Quelle erreur ai-je commis.
Hello, this picture is my property. I would like more information on the reasons for the request for deletion. What mistake have I committed? --Skyzmma (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Owning a photo does not give yu the right to freely license it. This image appears in many places on the Web. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
where can I know the athour died before 70 years, if the photo was made in 1934? Maksimilian karlovich (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Does not matter because of {{PD-Russia}} (author unknown etc.) --Amga (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: In order to use {{PD-Russia}} you must show both that the work was actually anonymous -- not merely unknown to us -- and that the work was published more than 70 years ago. Neither of those has been proven here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:31, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No information about the poster licensing. Rodrigolopes (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- All Content by Tasnim News Agency is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. You can see this in the site. GTVM92 (talk)
- Hi @GTVM92: , I´m talking about the image in the portrait specifically. It´s free licensed too? Maybe is a promotional banner from saipasport.com/? Rodrigolopes (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The photograph may be freely licensed, but the poster's copyirght is separate. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Low resolution, missing EXIF. Higher resolution copies can be found on the Interner: [8]. Probably not the uploader's own work. Marcus Hsu talk 01:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: applying COM:PRP. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Advertisement GY Fan★ 02:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious advertisement. JIP (talk) 19:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Advertisement GY Fan★ 02:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious advertisement. JIP (talk) 19:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
imho rather bad quality, not in use at Wikimedia projects and doubtful educational usefulness, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons, Roland zh (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Poor quality of image Abhinavgarule (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Iloveyouhannaledesmaaa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promotional material, notice file name & subject name, plus two copies of a text document and some advertising material, make this upload series out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:Cute Hanna Ledesma 2.JPG
- File:Cute Hanna Ledesma 5.JPG
- File:Cute Hanna Ledesma 4.JPG
- File:Cute Hanna Ledesma 3.JPG
- File:Cute Hanna Ledesma 1.JPG
- File:ASC Jumbo Plastic Linoleum Clearance 2.JPG
- File:ASC Jumbo Plastic Linoleum Clearance 1.JPG
- File:Sealion Plastic Label SKJ 2016 copy.jpg
- File:Jumbo Plastic Transparent 2.6 Hard SKJ Book Cover.jpg
- File:Jr Taganas with Hanna Ledesma.JPG
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JasonEstephan (talk · contribs)
[edit]No indication of user's own work on these overprocessed head shots of men. Probable COM:COPYVIOs, as well as out of scope for lack of notability. This stuff belongs on facebook, not Commons, please read COM:SCOPE.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs. Two files, one has the data at the bottom where it came from. Uploader added a second copy with that bar cut off and own work on both of them.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ProfessorAhmed12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SCOPE Commons isn't Facebook, personal images, poorly exposed and non-educational.
- File:0بروفيسور احمد محمد.jpg
- File:ProfessorAhmed.jpg
- File:بروفيسور احمد محمد.jpg
- File:ProfessorAhmed0.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ProfessorAhmed12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:SELFIE, out of scope.
- File:AHMED0.jpg
- File:AHMED785.jpg
- File:AHMED.jpg
- File:احمدFf5d71a4696ef2ae86a01201369f5773.jpg
- File:صور احمد.jpg
Thibaut120094 (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kavitachahalboxing (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. A gallery of a woman holding awards. Since the photographer did not create the awards, he or she is not able to freely license the photographs. Also no metadata and claim of own work dubious.
- File:Kavita chahal.jpg
- File:Kavita Chahal.jpg
- File:Kavita Chahal receiving Arjuna Award from president.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Liu Edward (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious "own" works (Photo of a movie poster, small resolutions, no EXIF)
2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 06:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
copyright violation 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 06:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohd Ahsan Ali (talk · contribs)
[edit]extremely bad quality
2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 06:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 08:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 08:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, appears to be for personal vanity only, way too small and low resolution to be of any use. JIP (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope file. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AYYANAR THAVAM (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal files
2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 08:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope files. Riley Huntley (talk) 07:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 08:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CaveofDionysis (talk · contribs)
[edit]Artworks by living artist Steve Cox. His permission is necessary.
BrightRaven (talk) 08:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused low-quality (uneven geometry, in-image caption text); have File:Haloperidol.svg among other high-quaity options DMacks (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Small and such low resolution that cannot discern key atom-identities or charges. Have File:Nitroguanidine.png DMacks (talk) 04:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 16:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
sbagliato. 151.32.45.137 14:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The error request seems to be "sbagliato", but the page is not. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept, no extant issues with the page. czar 14:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Let's start discussing the fact before the different opinions.
- OTRS-ticket:
- The OTRS-ticket is a realease, which was processed by the OTRS-agent Emufarmers, and it seems like his first and only permissions-ticket.
- The OTRS-ticket is for a release of the printscreen, not sent by Google that they release the design and arrangement of content.
- Copyright-status:
- Just as some argue that information and data listed in our infoboxes and tables aren't copyrightable, some argue that the arrangement of Public Domain works could make a work copyrightable as a derivative. Especially if such derivative is taken verbatum.
I do not wish for this to be deleted, but think this could be an interesting dicussion etc. Josve05a (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Whm... I see some text extracted from Wikipedia and just data about Thomas Jefferson, ineligible for copyright. The rest are portraits older than 100 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitie 10g (talk • contribs) 03:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I know of logos consisting of shapes, such as squares and triangles, but if arranged (and enough amount) is arrenged in such a way, it may warrant copyright. Josve05a (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I'm the uploader, and made quite sure to ask the Googlers working on the project that they released the image. We specifically chose a public domain image to ease the process. The arrangement, chrome, and whatnot may or may not warrant copyright, but if so, Google would be the owner, and Google released this specific image. It would be a shame if this was invalidated by the fact that the volunteer who answered the ticket didn't answer any others. --GRuban (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a serious problem here that I cannot disclose openly. Please do not close this until I resolve it with an e-mail. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Jim thinks it's not clear that I work for Google for my paying job. I do. (More details.) However, I don't work on the Knowledge Panel itself, and had to ask them if I could release it for Google. In a separate email, Jim also thinks I don't regularly release things from Google as part of my job. He's right, I regularly don't, I'm an engineer, not a PR person, this might be the only time, and there certainly haven't been many. Will see if I can get them to follow up to Jim directly, so he can add it to the OTRS ticket. --GRuban (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The problem that I noted above was that the OTRS ticket made it clear that User:GRuban and the Google employee who sent the OTRS e-mail are the same person. The undisclosed relationship was a violation of https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Guidelines_on_potential_conflicts_of_interest. He has clarified that above. As he also says above, the form of the permission in the OTRS ticket suggested strongly that the writer does not have the authority to freely license Google property.
- Please, as he suggests, give this a little time for him to sort it out. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: We now have OTRS confirnation of the license. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
2016년 3월 15일 (화) 05:04 virsion delete request.it include metadata. and reupload no metadata new virsion. Please delete it. Thank you. (2016년 3월 15일 (화) 05:04판에 메타정보가 포함되어 있습니다. 메타정보가 없는 새 파일 올렸습니다. 이전 판의 삭제를 바랍니다. 감사합니다.) -- 메이 `토론 06:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Preserving metadata is always preferred, and no deletion of metadata should be performed unless it contains sensitive information. I do not see such informations. — regards, Revi 07:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal images. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal images. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Not used, and not likely to be used: it's a company logo, and nobody's going to use it for unrelated purposes. See es:Crazy Site; the article has been deleted numerous times. Nyttend (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: JurgenNL (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyright notice for Strajin Igor is clearly visible in lower left of image... Stout256 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo, own work is unlikely. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
A Google image search shows some results on Youtube with no evidence of a Commons-compatible free license. In case of a deletion, please process the redirect file:Chaz5.jpg that I made with a filemove too. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Weil es ein neues Bild gibt LuckhardtAnker (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Then upload a new version under a new name if the new image is different. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep "neues Bild" kein Löschgrund - hier darf es ruhig mehrere Bilder geben --axel (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear what this is from the description but it looks like a partial part of the copyrighted image here for . In English, this isn't even used in place of a picture of the individuals. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio (complex logo, no permission). --Wdwd (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Spammy spam is not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. The uploader is advised to go be a spammer somewhere else. —LX (talk, contribs) 21:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, + possible copyvio (com:pcp). --Wdwd (talk) 12:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Not needed duplication of File:Avraham Schwadron 002.jpg Ldorfman (talk) 22:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: This is the original photo, and was uploaded before, so impossible to be duplicate. No reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't make sense to leave both files (why should we do it?). The second one is better, and since it's the same picture, only one should stay. Ldorfman (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion (to keep the version history/original source - field "other-version" set). --Wdwd (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
All of these come from "familysearch.org". I checked some of the uploader's files from "familysearch.org", and that website sourced those to Flickr, where they were listed as CC-BY-NC-ND. It's likely that the other images from that website also are licensed under that licence. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time to find the images on Flickr to check as the uploader to Commons links directly to the image on "familysearch.org" and as the file information page on "familysearch.org" links to the Flickr collection instead of linking to the file information page on Flickr.
- File:Saint Mary Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Saint John the Baptist Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Saint James Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Jefferson Davis Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Evangeline Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Catahoula Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Cameron Parish Courthouse.jpg
- File:Gibson County Courthouse TN.jpg
- File:Carroll County Courthouse TN.jpg
Stefan2 (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: images listed on flickr as cc-by-nc-nd -> no valid license for commons. --Wdwd (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused out of scope personal image. Riley Huntley (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted. Fry1989 eh? 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 11:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Files of User:Saeeddamghanian
[edit]- File:Saeed Damghanian.jpg
- File:Saeed Damghanian 2.jpg
- File:Saeed Damghanian3.jpg
- File:Saeed Damghanian 4.jpg
- File:Saeed Damghanian 5.jpg
Unused out of scope personal images. --Riley Huntley (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 11:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
duplicate of Image:example.jpg Dico85 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Probably non-free, see here Letartean (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. --Wdwd (talk) 12:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Unused logos of non-notable companies (no mention neither in en.wiki nor in es.wiki) are out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Wdwd (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author and copyright holder Aungmyin Yezaw is needed. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination bigger and older versions on the web https://www.google.fr/search?source=lnt&tbs=sbi%3AAMhZZitizeMjqqhMnhQs-2l_1N4Gxhu68cdf8JXjK6n4P4xRtk3Pm5jYPK3b9eVsHYOUydFKDWDQVQbaY0Buzk62izekCupwfxkoh_1PlmjqtEfjgxLNV0r-wzfBW2bWL5TOwrdkzGvMp3shxySeQMgFExCWf_1j4Bg5BLt_1HCOcjYHRTk-lumIXN2HoavcfMxs-tS7mpw1_1C1Be1WljgIPzuZN55ecXwcYbDhjo8mCg0Vr44XC2Q5mzkRHYoRdh9D1frsw6YrolkvuEc4FF5i7JKUeJHX-1_1bQMgod8Y0CkOeA3BZ0YR_1MfbNk4Iz7ACGHE3D3UX8X2z3PJ3dPgx6LEnD0yy_1hiw82vUoMqV25mLlKoJxppP91TugrIvW2lBQf2enABzAGlBijspkq6ISDajY3So4s0O_1bb_1QQ95eq7LySycqwAyE8cGTzDUKi7vcuoG_13MpiNxpxBiKfkh885ZBQ4mwf-CKgxleKrnWfLgFVDHpb-vz7Uqg0GzLcdu8JL6N3UbiFFRQsd5G0VNfpUs_1BmFBTsrM_1T2fF3FG_1LxACUIDxkXsHHObZRIfr9vqqGeI8c1BWaX9DBntMGPBokixhUPtJM1bkxbCRa6kdv_1NMauhgYe8v4Vjw1sqOrdXbnsFsmnHn7zkhxt3Kvi8MH6uldousz2FVlDcD2Y72cnMn5X9FjFzP6KTehQG2udGlQG922dRwYHh54-qdyVLOTxKElL0OMZi-KsnrYCD87e5LGAI_15vyHJEIxVnAT7l5EBSdHjs0y8RybFZtfUyAHwFitpNHyEJwunuj66SDNypbETi8xEti84bZaKls-ryulpS-Y-_1P1DWF3JKeXZzn9hWomtN99i1xmetddycu0sElaDz4kC8iuSEflftu22S2_1DUc_16XFuZMXE-t3pm_1dVYsFJrG1muKl4r5AWk-SmOLpHGpUhCTgZwdgFx6fr5FYJulul5FbLUlpAKx7-b90YRRjeir8yck4DZwEqJHnFINMqIV47CcvrFn1wkeLtoZEoTxnDJnit7BqLWXoxE5Qh8g1qFZZcmLVCtS7F4Fpn1N26BC7N5oUrugyq6DmcwQ8kPInm3y8900_1ERcRGZfoPaOVXqzGbso8pk_1JbwpUS4VbxqjIfvf7Ru5mapwzk25WtA-15_1jMaaUEnSxDcBBpyXZEWNMtM_1XsqAwFxzjuFyHamXLiFv_1c5pKufa1PvdN1TyH3A2-Uv_1DhhL-rj-IRmmdSw2LepeXgcaEGpIRqm8YVIL9ZsHedt7zUardCB9dIdbYnoFYg5VCYqfWe4doh0ZvtNYXPzcGxdqHTcReiNKbTD0x99H5dxBZG665Ifvc1_1lshV3Q5FTVUimaz2qb2DFTaDcBpmnwLBPD3FWmuuJaRvsA7ivM60yLQbdmp41cUSLI9odHMNf6dJwgW7VtGRx4lpYz78kLAVZdWren_17EswIARlycwwNurjK4O2M3CzGfJjScbcvGnvPl4kbHTi0kzhlelmZPYdR6dyz3LfGfKipRgYnuXbYOfsIcPZQ2D1bNJ2PG6sLxz-gtcqLwNFJyk2RdhXORhDdWp28_1QEYdVjk4Tqm5jjBoaMANmGyODxXGjs2rNM6UA-uDlFe3FdCZF4JtSFGT33AX12pOuIKZd7O1gGiupgoohiw%2Ccdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A15%2F03%2F2016&tbm=. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This image is a near-duplicate of File:Bateaugoelette.jpg. After some photoshopping this one would possibly be better quality than File:Bateaugoelette.jpg, but I don't think it makes enough difference to bother about. We have numerous other images of this famous vessel. This image isn't used anywhere. See also the 2008 comments on the talk page. I hope it is correct of me to nominate this for deletion. Strolls (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: In use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: file is in use. --Yasu (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
File:Bg-vaveda.ogg Denis Marinov (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Denis Marinov, please elaborate on your nomination. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Riley Huntley (talk) 07:10, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
hapocalici 200.89.84.69 07:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: Vandalism by IP. --Achim (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Vandalism-only account, user blocked indef at ptwiki+enwiki. Gunnex (talk) 08:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 19:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Hanadi Uneisi (talk) 22:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
Question What do you mean? Should your talk page be deleted? Or should the file you used in the deletion request be deleted? We usually do not delete user talk pages. The image's watermark suggests that the image was created by a photo studio and that it is therefore a copyright violation. If the file is a copyright violation, then it should be deleted. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Given reason had been [[File:ر.jpg|thumb|ر]], which is already done per Commons:Deletion requests/File:ر.jpg. --Achim (talk) 18:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nothing to do, malformed DR is already filed. --Achim (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope (black image): Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 11:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Vandalism? Riley Huntley (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 19:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Felixarturovc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Collection of promo photos and movie stills. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Tremebundacorte.jpg
- File:Tremendacorte.jpg
- File:Panzon-pataflaca.jpg
- File:Lamofle.jpg
- File:Flormariapalomeque.jpg
- File:Davidreinoso.jpg
- File:Elcholito.jpg
- File:Colsamborondon.jpg
- File:Carcel la catedral.jpg
- File:Eileenmoreno.jpg
- File:Griseldablanco.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Commons:Derivative works from non-trivial logos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo or TV screenshot. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text documents of questionable notability.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 00:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Book and game artwork. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Illuminati (game) 4.JPG
- File:Illuminati (game) 3.JPG
- File:Illuminati (game) 1.JPG
- File:أنتيخريستوس.pdf
- File:MOLAY DRISS.jpg
- File:Images(1).jpg
- File:Images(2).jpg
- File:Images(4).jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tyler Built (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused text document of questionable notability, out of project scope, should be converted to text if notable
- File:Service Mark.jpg
- File:Tyler Built Press Release.pdf
- File:Ivy Link February 2016 - Development and Alumni Relations - Penn State Altoona.pdf
- File:Tyler Built.jpg
Motopark (talk) 07:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Yerkes.Jeanes (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope.
- File:136126787 Jeanes, Isaac.jpg: unused file, private image
- File:Roni.png: unused file, private image
- File:Joe Zao.jpg: unused file, private image
- File:Roni 1.png: unused out-of-scope text
- File:Roni0101.png: old postcard. Impossible to check if it is in the PD without source and author
- File:TitaniumMay25.png: unused file, private image
- File:TitaniumonDec311999.png: unused low-quality photograph of a cat. Out of scope imho.
- File:CharmMay2004.png: unused low-quality photograph of a cat. Out of scope imho.
- File:Cover large.jpg: is it really own work? only in use in a user page of a user without useful contribution to the project.
- File:Christmas Joe Headshot.jpg: private image only in use in a user page of a user without useful contribution to the project.
- File:Judge-Richard-E-Moore-05-01-2014.jpg: private document only in use in a user page of a user without useful contribution to the project.
- File:Joseph Zao Court Order N 38350 Page 1.jpg: private document only in use in a user page of a user without useful contribution to the project.
- File:Stansberry & Associates Investment Research.jpg: unused out-of-scope text
BrightRaven (talk) 08:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Not in use, wiki isn't a hosting Bilderling (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Ksdysa research). MER-C 10:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User:Sethigroup). MER-C 10:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional content/spam Ahecht (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 16:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 16:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Carnival in Maastricht
[edit](Small) images without EXIF, unsure if own work
- File:Carnaval 2013 Maastricht.png
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 1.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 10.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 100.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 101.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 102.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 103.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 11.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 110.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 111.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 112.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 113.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 114.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 115.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 116.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 117.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 118.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 119.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 12.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 120.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 121.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 122.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 123.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 124.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 125.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 126.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 127.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 13.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 14.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 15.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 16.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 17.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 18.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 19.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 2.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 20.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 21.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 22.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 23.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 24.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 25.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 26.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 27.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 28.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 3.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 30.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 31.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 32.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 33.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 34.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 35.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 36.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 37.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 38.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 39.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 4.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 40.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 41.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 42.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 43.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 44.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 45.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 46.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 47.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 48.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 49.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 5.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 50.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 51.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 52.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 53.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 54.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 55.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 57.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 58.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 59.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 6.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 60.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 61.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 62.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 63.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 64.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 65.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 66.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 67.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 69.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 7.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 70.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 71.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 72.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 73.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 74.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 75.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 76.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 77.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 78.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 79.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 8.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 80.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 81.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 82.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 83.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 84.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 85.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 86.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 87.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 88.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 89.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 9.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 90.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 91.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 92.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 93.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 94.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 95.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 96.JPG
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 97.jpg
- File:Carnaval Netherlands 2013 98.jpg
Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Small image missing EXIF, unsure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Small image missing EXIF, unsure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Blown up picture, unsure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Upscaled picture, not sure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 14:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused file, private image BrightRaven (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Commons is not a social media site. JIP (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 09:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Commons is not a social media site. JIP (talk) 19:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Scope is dubious. Appears to be the logo of an unremarkable ISP located in Tehran, with no usage. Reventtalk 10:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, out of project scope. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related ptwiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
better version File:BG-Burgas flag.png TheVovaNik (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Delete low quality image in favor of high quality replacement. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Delete as per Riley Huntley Lotje (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photos, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, Commons is not a social media site. JIP (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete cute but out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Karipoprinsley (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal files
- File:PRINSLEY1.jpg
- File:KARIPO2.jpg
- File:Karipo fam pic 2 edited-1.jpg
- File:KARIPO.jpg
- File:Karipo U.jpg
- File:Karipo Uzuvirua Prinsley.jpg
2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 11:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 12:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
unused personal file 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 12:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work, as a photograph of a book cover. McGeddon (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- This was part of a very large number of free images moved from EN, but I don't know that it has any real value within scope, so I do not oppose deletion. However I'd disagree that this particular book cover is eligible for any individual copyright, consisting only of a four-word phrase and a national flag over a gradient. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 17:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as for the derivative work, scope ok. --Basvb (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
small bad quality photo without exif - copyvio? Also probably out of scope. /St1995 13:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Unused out of scope image. Riley Huntley (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kushagra Kumar Singh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Some wiki contest?. --Basvb (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused private image, no educational value → out of scope. Jahobr (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: In use. --Amitie 10g (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: "In use" only on uploader's own user page. Doesn't really count as "in use", does it? JIP (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not the most useful, but if a user (only those who also attribute to content) uses it it is fine for in scope. --Basvb (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional content/spam Ahecht (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Promotional content/spam Ahecht (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lleonrica12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Glue Factor.pdf
- File:Decisive Conversations.png
- File:Logo W 2016 Certified Company.jpg
- File:The-C-Index.png
- File:Logo A MI SI ME TOCA (dragged).pdf
- File:WWL.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Out of scope. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Inadmissible derivative work of copyrighted character, furthermore out of project scope! Ras67 (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete photoshopped derivative of common Yoda image, no permission from author, none forthcoming czar 15:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Anil Shebe is unknown to en.wiki. Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Capil Verma is unknown to en.wiki. Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Small unused photo without metadata, depicted person is not mentioned in en.wiki. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This image shows a board game. Board games are copyright. The photographer cannot license this image freely as he/she is not the game designer. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Subject of the photo is copyrighted. No permission from the photographer either czar 06:47, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Dubious "own" work (in fact a selfie of Dimitry Mayer http://vk.com/dmitrymayer?w=wall164784680_3942) 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 06:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal image. Only use is in a Spam article on WP:EN that is about to be deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This is claimed to be a selfie, but I doubt. small photo without metadata, maybe copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep it's personnal satirical cartoon of Yoda. --Clodion (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Personal derivative works of copyrighted things are not allowed on Commons! --Ras67 (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- It's à Fan art Commons:Fan art#Some examples from the fictional Harry Potter universe. --Clodion (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, there are more as free "commonplace pre-existing elements". --Ras67 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy czar 15:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Low-quality JPEG image. SVG is available. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: File uploaded in 2005, no valid reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Basvb (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Jochen Burghardt as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:KolmogorovZurbenkoResearchShip.jpg Reventtalk 07:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Pretty obvious, IMO, it's very broken, but it's not a speedy (distinctly different, and not the same file type). Reventtalk 07:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Focus of the work is copyrighted (unlicensed) artwork czar 02:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, no fair use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Picture collection must collect from local picture from Commons, please upload first every picture to Commons and then collect it from those. Please take a look at File:Collage Rome.jpg as an example how to do it. See Commons:Collages for details. Motopark (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyvio. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by YanMariaYaoyolotl (talk · contribs)
[edit]A series of promotional or self-promotional "artist with paintings" work, no indication of who took the photos, obviously not own work. Other image appears to be one of the paintings directly.
- File:En el Estudio de YanMaríaYaoyólotl.jpg
- File:MIS KA´AN Ú.jpg
- File:Pintando cuadro de Femicidio en Juárez 2003.jpg
- File:Yan María Yaoyólolt.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Il vescovo (talk · contribs)
[edit]Four photos, four team group shots, two cameras, one of them supposed to be taken in 1920... all claimed own work. There is no indication of user's own work on these photos.
- File:Mannschaftsfoto der Junioren A.jpg
- File:2. Mannschaft Sportverein Lyss.jpg
- File:1. Mannschaft Sportverein Lyss.jpg
- File:Mannschaft1920.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Reprinted from a publication without source information. Unlikely to be user's own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please go ahead an delete this photo, it is my fault. I didn't understand the copyright policies correctly. Felix Jalov - 19:43, 31 March 2016 (CET)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Award is certainly not user's own work, even if the photo is. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please go ahead an delete this photo, it is my fault. I didn't understand the copyright policies correctly. Felix Jalov - 19:43, 31 March 2016 (CET)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No confidence this is own work of uploader, no metadata; user's other uploads were speedied. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Please go ahead an delete this photo, it is my fault. I didn't understand the copyright policies correctly. Felix Jalov - 19:43, 31 March 2016 (CET)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This image doesn't look as if it was taken in 2016, see the horse cart and so on, please explain how this comes as own work? Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, cannot possibly be own work, unless uploaded by a supecentenarian. Either a derivative work or blatant theft, neither of which fall under the stated licence. JIP (talk) 19:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Museo Provincial Palacio Dionisi (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIO: Two copies of same photograph, claimed own work, but one has overprinting showing true source.
- File:Fotografía de la residencia de Juan Kegeler.jpg
- File:Primera fotografía de la residencia de Juan Kegeler.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIO. Despite the robot finding this photo with this license, Flickr user "Hubert Figuière took this photo. Tom Lehmann created the game shown." The Flickr user cannot license the game created by another. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm no expert on Wikimedia copyright rules so if you say this is a copyvio, I guess it is. It seems like quite a few of the images in Category:Board games do not meet the board game rules, however. Is there any way this image could be altered, or another in-game photo taken, in a way that would be allowed? Ungulates (talk) 05:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: individual images on the cards are so fuzzy, so grainy, COM:DM. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Photomontage with images whose license is not known. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
For the 3rd time. Image that violates copyright. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete all his uploads speedily. 39 files, including 10 collages, where source files are not shown, and 2 logos, which surpass threshold of originality. Other files are small photos and mostly without metadata. Only 2 photos have (different) camera data. Taivo (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
empty gallery 최광모 (talk) 06:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by EricSerge as duplicate (Dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:USPHS Regular Corps R.JPG Reventtalk 07:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This is not an exact duplicate, as the 'maroon' color is not the same. One or the other (I suspect this one) is in error, but it's not a speedy. Reventtalk 07:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by TheVovaNik as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:Flag of the Southern Province (Sri Lanka).PNG Reventtalk 07:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Does not appear, to my eye, to be an 'exact duplicate'; however; they are quite similar, and the other version is vastly superior. I'd say delete and redirect, but it's not a speedy IMO. Reventtalk 07:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and redirected. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"When using this template, please provide information of where the image was first published and who created it." -Missing such information. Josve05a (talk) 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I would be very pleased to know what the problem is believed to be. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm I see I have been beaten to it. That is easy will do now. Eddaido (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is First published Weekly Courier, Tasmania, issue of 16 November 1911 but I have been unable to find where to put that statement. Eddaido (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Ok, then I'm good. Admin can close as withdrawn if sufficient "evidence" has been provided. Josve05a (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The answer is First published Weekly Courier, Tasmania, issue of 16 November 1911 but I have been unable to find where to put that statement. Eddaido (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hmmm I see I have been beaten to it. That is easy will do now. Eddaido (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that the 1911 date is sufficient since the image dates to this period. Thanks for your comments Josve05a. Regards, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: missing info has been added. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Gbawden as duplicate (Dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:VITALIY GOLIK.jpg Reventtalk 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not an exact duplicate. The other is higher resolution, but this has a wider crop. Reventtalk 07:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: not a duplicate. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Dubious "own" work, see https://uk.linkedin.com/in/alionamuchinskaya 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 08:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No permission. Only use is in a spam article on WP:EN. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
small photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Fake license. Logo can't be own or free Bilderling (talk) 10:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: You should explain why the logo is above or bellow the COM:TOO. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo, no educational value. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably, copivio http://stomashevskiy.livejournal.com/655.html Bilderling (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, blatant copyvio. JIP (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment OTRS-permission needed. Username on commons is similiar to the publisher on http://stomashevskiy.livejournal.com/655.html. Riley Huntley (talk) 04:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alexander Nikolaev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Not in use, spamer's contribution
Bilderling (talk) 10:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. Zoomed in (not higher resolution) copy of File:Michel Pinault, historien, 1967-1968.jpg, which was marked as a duplicate of this. This version is terrible. Reventtalk 10:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and likely copyvio, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Michel Pinault, historien, 1967-1968.jpg. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: unused promotional logo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Paul Herrmann (Henri Héran)
[edit]Artworks by Paul Herrmann (d. 1946). They will only enter the public domain in 2017.
- File:Aquarell, Maria della Salute, Venedig, 1945.jpg
- File:Ex Libris Hans Weidenbusch.jpg
- File:Henri Héran - Spielendes Meerweib.png
- File:Henri Héran Fleur de mai.png
- File:Herrn Lorenz Adlon gewidmet von den Mitgliedern am Hotelbau - Berlin Oct. 1907.jpg
- File:Illustration zum Gedicht Jahrestag von Henri Héran.jpg
- File:Radierung, Luise Herrmann mit Sohn Paul Herrmann.jpg
- File:Spielende Meerjungfrau - Erster Entwurf (1896).JPG
BrightRaven (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- BrightRaven, hello : do as you have to. After May 2016, I will reloaded all the files. Nota bene : some of them have been published before 1923 in the USA. Thanks, --Spiessens (talk) 12:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- These artworks will only enter the public domain on 1st January, 2017, not on the anniversary date of the death of their author. If the images are deleted, they will be restored in due time because this DR is categorized in Category:Undelete in 2017. Commons requires that the image are in the public domain both in the source country and in the US. BrightRaven (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- D'accord. Je pensai avoir compris que les termes des 70 ans s'entendaient au lendemain de la date de décès de l'auteur (qui est donc le 1er mai 1946) et non au 1er janvier, etc. Dans ce cas, je dois faire attention à mes prochains téléchargements... Cordialement et merci, --Spiessens (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- These artworks will only enter the public domain on 1st January, 2017, not on the anniversary date of the death of their author. If the images are deleted, they will be restored in due time because this DR is categorized in Category:Undelete in 2017. Commons requires that the image are in the public domain both in the source country and in the US. BrightRaven (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dragonflowers (talk · contribs)
[edit]detected exact matched img on a site, says "All rights reserved." url= [9] or, see also:{{No permission since}}
Tokorokoko (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Some random guy's Selfie. Also linked to a self ad on en wiki. Clubjustin4 (talk) 13:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
posible violación del copyright desde http://www.metroecuador.com.ec/noticias/serie-la-pareja-feliz-fue-sancionada-por-la-supercom-y-debera-disculparse-publicamente/AzUnjg---760a58fdVtes/ Tarawa1943 (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
You cannot claim that the author of an image is 'unknown', and then claim to own the copyright in it (and thus the right to license it).... this is nonsensical. An late-1960s image (presumably from France) would have, at a minimum, a 70 year copyright term. Reventtalk 14:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Too blurred to be useful. Many alternatives in Category:Russian Army Theatre. Retired electrician (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The title should be Tortoise Rock Carving at Bhimbetka, instead of Frog Rock Carving Felixyog (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: renamed. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It is unlikely that the photos are user's own work. Marcel Wilhelm Richter (* 19. November 1886 in Darmstadt; † 18. Dezember 1966 ebenda) has not been dead 70 years, there is no information on the photographs as to who originally took the photos.
- File:Richter Odenwald-Tongrube-Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Tischstillleben.jpg
- File:Richter DA-Trümmer Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter DA-Müllersteich-Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Bodensee-Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Blumenvase-Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Bauernhof-Zaun Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Bauernhof-Bäume Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter Selbstporträt Ausschnitt.jpg
- File:Richter,MarcelWilhelm 19.11.1886(1915).jpg
- File:Richter,Marcel Wilhelm 19.11.1886(ca.75J.).jpg
- File:Richter,Marcel Wilhelm 19.11.1886(ca.65J.).jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Diese Foto-Bilder wurden von mir persönlich gemacht. This photo images were taken by myself personally. Güloda 17.03.2016
- Comment I do not disagree that the uploader took the photographs of photographs and paintings. The problem is that the uploader doesn't have the rights to the work of a recently deceased artist, nor to the photographs that were rephotographed. All were claimed as own work which they clearly are not. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Güloda: if you inherited Richter's copyrights, please explain this fact to COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Rettinghaus as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:Joseph Bologne de Saint-George from Angelo's Fencing.jpg Reventtalk 08:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not an exact duplicate, so not a speedy (it's also over a decade old) but vastly inferior to the newer version, and thus redundant. Reventtalk 08:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: inferior duplicate. --Storkk (talk) 09:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
It turns out there are TWO Vasily Khudiakovs. This one is still alive and, hence, still copyrighted WQUlrich (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. I have not verified that the living artist created this work, but accepted the statement of the nominator since they are also the uploader. --Storkk (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A page with publisher's non-trivial logo. 95.28.24.231 20:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- This user tries to remove all files and articles related to the history of protests in the USSR.
- Please, keep this file and all other files suggested for deletion by this user, and recover all files removed in this way. Domitori (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: appears to fit {{PD-textlogo}}. --Storkk (talk) 10:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. Zoomed in (not higher resolution) copy of File:Tiger woods.jpg, which was marked as a duplicate of this. Reventtalk 20:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, but also likely copyright violation (source image now tagged {{subst:npd}}). --Storkk (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Photographer w:ru:Норвежский Лесной. Original photo can be found in his report: http://bg.ru/society/antifashisty_na_nbsp_marshe_fotoreportazh-5353/ (6th from beginning). 95.28.24.231 20:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, likely copyright violation/License laundering. --Storkk (talk) 10:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 10:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The file is distorted, and I need to re-upload, but it will tell me "it seems that there's another file on here with that content" Tjsmith9656 (talk) 23:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Then, upload a new version instead. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused, unusable in its current state, uploader's request. --Storkk (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Not really a PD. It's downloaded from the source, a commercial news web page dated 2015-12-22. Marcus Hsu talk 01:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Isn't it a repruduction of a 2-D work? That should be a PD--如沐西风 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is a faithful reproduction. Although the painting itself is PD, the use of angle and lights in photography contribute to a new creative and copyrightable work. --Wcam (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Any creative angle and light in this work? Though it's not scanned, it just look like something scanned, a faithful reproduction of a 2-D work.--如沐西风 (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
COM:PDART: "When a photograph demonstrates originality (typically through the choice of framing, lighting, point of view and so on), it qualifies for copyright even if the photographed subject is itself uncopyrighted." Although the artwork in question is not 3D but I believe this still apply. --Wcam (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per wcam, this photographic repoduction shows creativity. --Basvb (talk) 17:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. No metadata, found in multiple sites, for example, https://wallpaperscraft.com/download/rainbow_bridge_tokyo_japan_river_lights_city_28519/2560x1440 . I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 09:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Moumou82 as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: duplicate|File:Mosquée El Ahmadi (plaque commémorative) photo 3 الجامع الأحمدي.jpg Reventtalk 10:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Not a duplicate, and not a speedy, but probably redundant to the other due to the subject being cropped. Reventtalk 10:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:15, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Cris tJ = serial copyright violator/file cropper for Brazilian municipality pt:Vermelho Novo. File:Fieis, cruzeiro, vermelho novo.JPG appears to be a reupload (2 hours after deletion).
- File:Praça, vermelho Novo.jpg
- File:Farmacia de minas, padrão.JPG
- File:Fieis, cruzeiro, vermelho novo.JPG
Gunnex (talk) 10:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Artistic work of alive designer. No FoP in France, not de minimis here. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Artistic work of alive designer. No FoP in France, not de minimis here. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Artistic work of alive designer. No FoP in France, not de minimis here. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 10:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Есть уже существующий файл File:Flag of Chernihiv Oblast.png, данный же - его худшая копия TheVovaNik (talk) 11:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Seems like album cover. That case OTRS-permission from band representative is needed. Taivo (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:17, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
EXIF: Copyright holder: ICON STUDIOO 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 12:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not own work. Without information about the author or the original publication, it is impossible to check if it is in the public domain (see COM:PRP). BrightRaven (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Dubious "own" work 2003:45:5C35:C201:38:ED23:B627:A4B0 12:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo, not own work, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Who is real photographer and when (s)he died? Taivo (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Appears to be a Commons:Derivative work of a Spanish original dating from 1992 William Avery (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://resize.rbl.ms/image?source=https%3A%2F%2Fassets.rbl.ms%2F267465%2F1216x700.jpg&size=2000%2C2000&c=roAPFC6foExWi7I3. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from photos. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in France, the X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The spacecraft design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The spacecraft design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of Star Wars stuff in Wikimedia Commons. Do you propose to delete them all? I think unless George Lucas or his company itself requests it, then it should stay. Or maybe just somebody ask them outright about it.RoyKabanlit (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (GMT+8)
- Indeed it is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, nowadays Disney and yes all may have to delete, except de minimis or freedom of panorama cases. Commons want to heed all laws, without intervention of the entitled copyright owner! --Ras67 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of Star Wars stuff in Wikimedia Commons. Do you propose to delete them all? I think unless George Lucas or his company itself requests it, then it should stay. Or maybe just somebody ask them outright about it.RoyKabanlit (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (GMT+8)
- Indeed it is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, nowadays Disney and yes all may have to delete, except de minimis or freedom of panorama cases. Commons want to heed all laws, without intervention of the entitled copyright owner! --Ras67 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of Star Wars stuff in Wikimedia Commons. Do you propose to delete them all? I think unless George Lucas or his company itself requests it, then it should stay. Or maybe just somebody ask them outright about it.RoyKabanlit (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (GMT+8)
- Indeed it is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, nowadays Disney and yes all may have to delete, except de minimis or freedom of panorama cases. Commons want to heed all laws, without intervention of the entitled copyright owner! --Ras67 (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a LOT of Star Wars stuff in Wikimedia Commons. Do you propose to delete them all? I think unless George Lucas or his company itself requests it, then it should stay. Or maybe just somebody ask them outright about it.RoyKabanlit (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2016 (GMT+8)
- Indeed it is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, nowadays Disney and yes all may have to delete, except de minimis or freedom of panorama cases. Commons want to heed all laws, without intervention of the entitled copyright owner! --Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Lucasfilm at least (Lucas himself sold the rights to Disney), but yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copied Logo - in public domain? Bilderling (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Just text, very bellow the TOO even in the UK. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Basvb (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Ras67 (talk) 16:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The X-Wing design is copyrighted by George Lucas. Freedom of Panorama does not apply, this installation was not permanent! Ras67 (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- De minimis can be applied.--81.61.184.160 20:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Three copyrighted figures Yoda, X-Wing and Luke Skywalker de minimis? The purpose of this picture is to image exact this characters and things and are not meaningless accessories. --Ras67 (talk) 23:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm. You has no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm. You has no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm. You has no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted figures, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy, no free license from graffiti copyright holder, etc. Also these noms could have been bundled together. czar 15:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted figures, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy, no free license from graffiti copyright holder, etc. Also these noms could have been bundled together. czar 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy czar 15:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy, no free license from graffiti copyright holder, etc. Also these noms could have been bundled together. czar 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:36, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy, no free license from graffiti copyright holder, etc. Also these noms could have been bundled together. czar 15:45, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete outside graffiti: no freedom of panorama in Italy, no free license from graffiti copyright holder, etc. Also these noms could have been bundled together. czar 15:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted figure, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama in Italy. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I don't understand. Why? -- Il Passeggero - I love to love you 09:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Graffiti and Murals are not allowed on Commons with the exception of freedom of panorama, but this is not the case in Italy. Furthermore derivative works of copyrighted characters are also forbidden.--Ras67 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete no freedom of panorama in Italy, no license for photos of outside graffiti czar 15:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:TOYS Ras67 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:TOYS Ras67 (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in the United States. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama for sculptures in the United States. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Yoda is copyrighted by Lucasfilm, furthermore No Freedom of Panorama in France. You have no right to publish this under a free licence! Ras67 (talk) 17:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This image clearly shows the copyrighted box and game elements of "Chaos Arena". Uploader most likely took the photo, but the board game depicted is not own work and uploader cannot license it. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Image non libre de droits Mini1300 (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Voir ici: Recherche google
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Image suspecte, non libre de droit? Mini1300 (talk) 18:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Weird licensing, small, no EXIF, and the user has already some DRs for his uploads reported on his talkpage. Some arabic speaking colleague would be needed for clarification of the situation, I think. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. --Basvb (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 20:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The derivative works in this video are not covered by the White House copyright (Garland's family photos, even the music is unattributed). The WH posted the video on YouTube under a standard license too, for what that's worth (not Creative Commons). I'd think that the Garland screenshots are fine, but the other stuff is copyrighted outside the White House's jurisdiction. czar 02:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, product of the United States Federal Government. The other items are of minimal use in the entire video file. Produced by The White House. Obviously yes screenshots from the video that are the ones where Judge Merrick Garland is being interviewed by The White House are public domain. As is the video. -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The video is produced by the White House and is thus public domain. Note that the President of the United States is telling us this on the White House website, so this declaration carries a great deal of weight. Courts certainly could over-rule a declaration of the President, but would be hesitant to do so because of the principle of separation of powers.
- The copyright page https://www.whitehouse.gov/copyright declares that "Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected." which I'm sure we all agree with. (I'd only quibble that it is pursuant to the US Constitution (copyright clause), not just the law). The area where we might disagree is the material given to the White House by Garland. The copyright page says "Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." I'll argue that Garland has visited www.whitehouse.gov.
- So if somebody wanted to note in the file that the personal items of Garland are CC-BY 3.0, I'd agree, but deletion - no way.
- The license on YouTube is irrelevant - the video is public domain. Smallbones (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, no one is disputing the WH's usual license and that the video was prepared by federal WH staff. The issue is that the video is largely reliant on fair use materials (derivatives), for which we don't have a license. What makes you think the copyright is Garland's to give? They are all sorts of photos from all points in time. If the photos were blacked out of the video, I don't think there would be an issue. czar 19:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is quite clear. Cut and dry. Basic. Simple. See Whitehouse.gov Copyright Policy: "Copyright Policy - Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly—see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamilton Mixtape (12 May 2009 live at the White House) Lin-Manuel Miranda.ogv. The White House doesn't always secure proper permissions to put the derivative content from videos in the public domain. Again, their original content is fine, but the misc photos are clearly courtesy of the contributor and not actually cleared for copyright... I believe it's our policy to be more cautious, especially when the video's license section on YouTube doesn't specifically state that the video is cc-by. czar 20:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. This case involves participation by the subject with The White House and The White House website Whitehouse.gov. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Czar alludes to the Commons:Precautionary principle which says
- "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." (emphasis in the original)
- Given that the President of the United States, who is in charge of executing the laws of the United States (often via his control of the Justice Department), and the the Chief Judge of the Appeals Court of the District of Columbia (in effect the most senior judge in the US -excluding the 8 current Justices on the Supreme Court) say that this is not a copyright violation - I submit that there is no significant doubt about the freedom of this particular file. We need to be a bit more modest about our interpretation of the law here - we are not experts - and not try to over-rule both the President and the most senior judge in the US.
- I'll end with a paraphrase from Chief Justice John Roberts of the Supreme Court (from TIME magazine). "Roberts, once said, any time Judge Garland disagrees, you know you’re in a difficult area" Smallbones (talk) 23:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes exactly. This case involves participation by the subject with The White House and The White House website Whitehouse.gov. -- Cirt (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not exactly—see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hamilton Mixtape (12 May 2009 live at the White House) Lin-Manuel Miranda.ogv. The White House doesn't always secure proper permissions to put the derivative content from videos in the public domain. Again, their original content is fine, but the misc photos are clearly courtesy of the contributor and not actually cleared for copyright... I believe it's our policy to be more cautious, especially when the video's license section on YouTube doesn't specifically state that the video is cc-by. czar 20:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is quite clear. Cut and dry. Basic. Simple. See Whitehouse.gov Copyright Policy: "Copyright Policy - Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise. Except where otherwise noted, third-party content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Visitors to this website agree to grant a non-exclusive, irrevocable, royalty-free license to the rest of the world for their submissions to Whitehouse.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License." Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, no one is disputing the WH's usual license and that the video was prepared by federal WH staff. The issue is that the video is largely reliant on fair use materials (derivatives), for which we don't have a license. What makes you think the copyright is Garland's to give? They are all sorts of photos from all points in time. If the photos were blacked out of the video, I don't think there would be an issue. czar 19:09, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Per nomination. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, I agree that this is a product of the United States Federal Government and the other items are of minimal use in the entire video file. I see no reasonable probability that a copyvio would be found here. Neutrality (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Please do read the above link to prior cases of this kind. We do not need to be modest at all. Commons has rules and standards - if this upload doesn't fit our scope and COM:L it will be deleted. If this were only a photo of Mr. Garland from the YouTube, that would be fine, but from the front of the video to the end I counted at least the following unattributed derivative visual works:
- Garland as youth - no permission
- wedding photo - no permission
- picture of wife and kids - no permission
- photo of trick or treating - no permission
- with kids - no permission
- at graduation - no permission
- CNN film clips - no permissions
- Oklahoma Bombing pictures from media (several) - no permissions
- Photo of newspaper, with photos - no permissions
- News photo Oklahoma Bombing - no permissions
- It is highly improbable that the government obtained permission from CNN and at least 3 other news organizations to put forward this video. I would think it would be ok to take a still shot of Mr. Garland from it; but with the rest of these unattributed images without permission - I have to vote delete. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Really! You're saying that both the President of the United States and the most senior Federal judge in the US are violating copyright law? Yes, there is CNN footage, but you are saying that you believe that the White House did not obtain permission to use it in a video that they are releasing to the pd. Why are you assuming this? Smallbones (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Note -- ALL of the photos from Garland are naturally and obviously YES permission given to The White House — as part of the vetting process. -- Cirt (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Really! You're saying that both the President of the United States and the most senior Federal judge in the US are violating copyright law? Yes, there is CNN footage, but you are saying that you believe that the White House did not obtain permission to use it in a video that they are releasing to the pd. Why are you assuming this? Smallbones (talk) 15:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Much as I would like to think that materials produced by the White House are in the public domain, this video clip contains material for which neither the White House nor Garland can own the copyright to release it. This media can be uploaded to Wikipedia under a fair use rationale. BD2412 T 16:40, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "this video clip contains material for which neither the White House nor Garland can own the copyright to release it." That just seems silly to me. If you were looking at a video from an anonymous username, it would make sense to assume that he hasn't gotten clearance from CNN, but here you know exactly who made the video, and you have every reason to believe that it was done 100% legally. So you doubt the White House can release the CNN video legally as pd - I think it's very easy if you work in the White House. You just call up CNN's lawyers and say, we need to include 15 seconds of CNN video from 15 years ago as part of a pd White House video, do we have your permission, and CNN lawyers say "yes, of course, we'll send over the paperwork." If you're saying, well that's just not good enough, I say, we can let President Obama and Judge Garland decide whether it is legal - that's good enough for anybody. Smallbones (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I have some doubt that either President Obama or Judge Garland assembled this video or selected the media clips to be included in it. If you can obtain some confirmation from the White House, or from CNN, that all elements of this video have been released into the public domain, by all means present it and I will amend my opinion accordingly. BD2412 T 20:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- "this video clip contains material for which neither the White House nor Garland can own the copyright to release it." That just seems silly to me. If you were looking at a video from an anonymous username, it would make sense to assume that he hasn't gotten clearance from CNN, but here you know exactly who made the video, and you have every reason to believe that it was done 100% legally. So you doubt the White House can release the CNN video legally as pd - I think it's very easy if you work in the White House. You just call up CNN's lawyers and say, we need to include 15 seconds of CNN video from 15 years ago as part of a pd White House video, do we have your permission, and CNN lawyers say "yes, of course, we'll send over the paperwork." If you're saying, well that's just not good enough, I say, we can let President Obama and Judge Garland decide whether it is legal - that's good enough for anybody. Smallbones (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep copyright paranoia is bad, and a convincing argument has been laid out by Neutrality. --In actu (talk) 13:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I doubt very much that the White House actually cleared copyright and licensed all ten of the items that Ellin listed above. I don't accuse them of copyright violation -- the use in the video falls under "fair use" which, of course, we don't permit. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Omnia Hasab (talk · contribs)
[edit]While some of these images appear old enough to be kept (the bas reliefs), the others are landscape images of monuments. There is no indication of user's own work on any of these photographs, various sizes, no metadata, etc. contribute to the doubt.
- File:الإله حورس وسيتي الأول.jpg
- File:المعبد الجنائزي لسيتي الأول.jpg
- File:سيتي الأول يعد العمود جد.jpg
- File:سيتي الأول بمعبد أبيدوس.jpg
- File:القائمة الملكية بأبيدوس.jpg
- File:الأوزيريون.jpg
- File:Templo funerario de Seti I.jpg
- File:سيتي الأول.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
"Own work" von Michael Kamm, obwohl er selbst das Bildobjekt ist? Vermutete URV, der Fotograf wird nicht genannt. Jbergner (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
dup with File:2000년대 초반 서울소방 소방공무원(소방관) 활동 사진 소방헬기 인명구조.jpg 최광모 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: -- Kept best version of three, (below). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
dup with File:2000년대 초반 서울소방 소방공무원(소방관) 활동 사진 소방헬기 인명구조.jpg 최광모 (talk) 06:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: the better version, deleted the other. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Bust of a man who died in 1946. The artist and the date of creation is unknown, so it is impossible to know if this artwork is in the PD. See COM:PRP. BrightRaven (talk) 08:50, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Severstal logo.png Semenov.m7 (talk) 09:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it's file does not match the license {{PD-textlogo}}.--Semenov.m7 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: below ToO. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not a selfie as claimed. OTRS-permission from photographer is needed. Taivo (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, can be found earlier on web, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Mr.oppa.2 (serial copyright violator for en:Oregon Institute of Technology). Uploaded since 11.2015. Some historical files, like File:OIT Purvine Winston.jpg, grabbed from copyrighted sites (http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/articles/oregon_institute_of_technology/#.VuqUOuY3mFU, © 2016 - Portland State University and the Oregon Historical Society. = http://www.oregonencyclopedia.org/media/uploads/OIT_Purvine_Winston.jpg, last modified: 2014), needing permission(s), as also obvious Google Maps derivates like File:OIT 16 Years.gif.
- File:OIT 16 Years.gif
- File:OIT Purvine Winston.jpg
- File:Geo-power-plant.jpg
- File:OIT Buildings.jpg
- File:OIT view toward Owens Hall 1970s.jpg
- File:Hootie.image.jpg
- File:Hygiene-school-building.jpg
- File:OIT Wilsonville.jpg
- File:Libraries-1.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:40, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Selbstporträt Horst Janssen: Keine Freigabe des Urhebers/Rechteinhabers ersichtlich Artmax (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Die Zeichnung entstand im Herbst 1968 während der Dreharbeiten direkt vor der Kamera zu einem Bericht über den Rücktritt des Hamburger Schauspielhaus-Intendanten Egon Monk. Der hatte eine Inszenierung Doppelkopf vorbereitet, die das Leben des KZ - Kommandanten Höß beinhalten sollte. Im Konflikt mit dem Schauspielhaus, das die Aufführung aus verschiedenen Gründen nicht zuließ und dem damit verbundenen Rücktritt Monks, folgten Proteste von Künstlerkollegen, unter anderem von Therese Giehse und eben Horst Janssen. Ich drehte als Autorin einen aktuellen Filmbericht über den Rücktritt und die Proteste für den NDR. Horst Janssen bestand darauf, seinen Protest nicht nur mündlich, sondern auch zeichnerisch darzustellen, indem er ein Blatt Doppelkopf vor der Kamera zeichnete. (Die bemängelte Datei mit der Signatur mit dem Text Grüß Dich Monk ist ein kleiner Ausschnitt dieser Zeichnung, die ich vor einigen Tagen fotografiert habe). Der Vorgang ist in dem Filmbericht mit dem Arbeitstitel Rücktritt Monk gesendet worden und meines Wissens von Jedermann über den NDR-Mittschnittdienst zu beziehen. Da der Vorgang vom Urheber offensichtlich öffentlich gemacht werden sollte, war ich der Ansicht, auch Wikipedia könne daran teilnehmen. --MoSchle (talk) 14:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: That's all very nice, but there is nothing there that gives you the right to freely license the work of Horst Janssen. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Historical photo. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @EugeneZelenko: The uploader has edited the attribution, can you take a look at it again? Basvb (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- What is copyrights status of stamps in India? Anyway it's not own work. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Indian stamps are OK after 60 years -- this is 1947. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Poor quality. Zoomed in (not higher resolution) copy of File:Robert Fossier en 1948-1949 à l'École des Chartes.jpg , which was marked as a duplicate of this. This version is terrible. Reventtalk 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- It is currently in use, however I doubt the own work claim on this very small 1960s image. Basvb (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristina Toletti (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Correspondencia al Dr. Gout sobre paradero familia Bergós.pdf
- File:Dr. Bergós nombrado Presidente Honorario de la Asociación Nacional de Donantes de Sangre de Panamá.jpg
- File:Asociación Nacional de Donadores de Sangre de Panamá nombra Presidente Honorário al Dr. Bergós.jpg
- File:Orden Josep Tarradellas.png
- File:Comisión Honorario del Servicio Nacional de Sangre.png
- File:Carta Tarradellas.png
- File:Francesc Bergós i Ribalta.jpg
- File:Francesc Bergos i Ribalta.jpeg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Image qui ne semble pas libre Shev123 (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
It seems quite unlikely that the uploader took this photograph in 1948 or 1949, and thus owns the copyright in it... it's almost certainly a copy from some other source. Assuming this image is from France (which seems most likely) it would seem to have a 'minimum' possible term of 70 years, which has not yet expired. Reventtalk 15:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Image is described as being from 1924, yet has a PD-1923 license which is - of course - one year prior. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- {{PD-US}} does mention 1923, but it not the same as {{PD-1923}}. Rich Farmbrough, 18:16 18 March 2016 (GMT).
Kept: Changed the tag to {{PD-US-no notice}} because there is no notice on the game board. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:53, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Box cover, cards, instructions and a private drawing on this image of "Pictionary Game". Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- The private drawing is ok (given it is the Wikipedia-globe the photographer likely has drawn it). If everything but the right stand is cropped off this could be acceptible as that supporting box is then de minimis. Basvb (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- I've made an example of the crop, please see the, now reverted (by me), version. Basvb (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: the crop, deleted the original versions. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Uploaded on 12.03.2016 for the Brazilian municipality Sorocaba. Even in high res and consistent exif, these two nice shots stand in contrast to the whole program stored at User talk:Umsamiug (serial copyright violator) + logs (around 30 copyvios: Flickr/Panoramio/blogs/etc. grabber) and in quality to File:Bh 043.JPG (uploaded some days before). IMHO untrusted user uploading a bunch of copyrighted material so these ones can't be believed, per COM:PRP, either.
- File:Vista parcial, a partir do mirante do Jardim Botânico.jpg
- File:Jardim Botânico "Irmãos Villas Boas", em Sorocaba.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 09:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
There's a lot of files who are photographies of video game (Nintendo, Star Wars) related subjects, most often likely official licensed toy products, but as such unfree for Commons. Additionally, some pictures of arcades machines where I'm unsure if de minimis is applicable for the decorations or not. Assuming protection, they would warrant deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grand-Duc (talk • contribs)
- User:Grand-Duc : And what you do for this ???? : Category:Pinball_games, Category:Arcade_games seriously Grand-Duc, it's hard for me not say you all it want to... pffff.
- What you do is a shame. It's so stupid --Archimëa (talk) 12:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I add that i'm against this deletions untill Category:Pinball_games, Category:Arcade_games still exists --Archimëa (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Archimëa: I saw that you wrote a reference to your Wikipedian work in French on your userpage. So, I'll communicate with you in that language, it's easier to me than English. En ce qui concerne les catégories Pinball et jeux d'arcades, je n'ai encore rien fait, et je ne sais pas si je vais faire quelque chose. Tout ce qui peut ou doit être fait le peut être par toi-même, principe Wiki. Je me permets d'ajouter que cette liste de demandes de suppression n'a rien de personnel, j'ai simplement vu le premier des fichiers listés ci-dessous dans la liste des contributions récentes. Comme il avait une référence à une source sur Commons, j'ai pensé que cela en valait la peine de jeter un coup d’œil sur les contributions de l'utilisateur qui avait téléchargé l'image. La liste visible avec l'outil "VisualFileChange" m'a quand même impressioné, le résultat est connu. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- I add that i'm against this deletions untill Category:Pinball_games, Category:Arcade_games still exists --Archimëa (talk) 13:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:Battletoads arcade cabinet - transparent.png
- File:Super Mario 3D Gummy candies.jpg
- File:Diddy Kong plush.jpg
- File:Donkey Kong Figurine.jpg
- File:Donkey Kong Figurines.jpg
- File:Donkey Kong Backpack.jpg
- File:Donkey Kong fruit snacks side (59389247).jpg
- File:Donkey Kong Country fruit snacks (59389197).jpg
- File:Man playing Attack from Mars pinball game.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1992 pinball game 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars video games stations.jpg
- De minimis to me. People building up some parts at an exhibition. Some parts far in the distance. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- De minimis to me. People building up some parts at an exhibition. Some parts far in the distance.
- File:Star Wars video games - Retro Gaming.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I - pinball game.webm
- File:Star Wars Racer Arcade Twin cabinet right.jpg
- De minimis to me. Few artwork from a distance. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- De minimis to me. Few artwork from a distance.
- File:Star Wars Racer Arcade Twin cabinet left 3.jpg
- File:Star Wars Racer Arcade Twin cabinet left 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars Racer Arcade Twin cabinet left.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game left.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game right.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game front.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game front3.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game front2.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1992 pinball game.jpg
- File:Star Wars Episode I pinball game.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade upright cabinet in game 4.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade upright cabinet in game 3.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade upright cabinet in game 2.jpg
- File:Lego Star Wars games.jpg
- I think de minimis can apply there: this is a photo of a room with several game stations. The content on the screens is hardly visible and the images on top of the two screens on the right are relatively small, and not the main subject of the picture. Orlodrim (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game artwork3.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game artwork5.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game artwork4.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game artwork1.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game artwork2.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade upright cabinet - front.jpg
- File:Man standing in front of a Star Wars - 1983 arcade game 2.jpg
- File:Man standing in front of a Star Wars - 1983 arcade game 1.jpg
- File:Kids playing Discs of Tron and Star Wars - 1983 arcade game.jpg
- File:Men playing Star Wars - 1983 arcade game at CAX.jpg
- File:Men playin Star Wars - 1983 arcade game.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game atwork.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game - right 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game - controls and screen.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game - left 2.jpg
- File:Star Wars - 1983 arcade game - left.jpg
- File:Kids playing Star Wars Arcade (Sega, 1993).jpg
- File:Star Wars Trilogy Arcade cabinet.jpg
- File:Boardwalk Arcade - Pinball games.jpg
- People playing pinball from a distance. 10 machines. No focus of the tiny artworks. So de minimis. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- People playing pinball from a distance. 10 machines. No focus of the tiny artworks. So de minimis.
- File:Quarter-pipe with Tony Hawk's Pro Skater HD advertisement.jpg
- File:Pac-Man Battle Royale cabinet front 3.JPG
- File:Boy playing Star Wars Racer Arcade.jpg
- File:Pac-Man Battle Royale cabinet front 2.JPG
- Very small amount of artwork or logo from a distance. De minimis to me. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Very small amount of artwork or logo from a distance. De minimis to me.
- File:Pac-Man Battle Royale cabinet front 1.JPG
- File:Pac-Man Battle Royale door+stick.JPG
- File:Star Wars Battle Pod cabinet - front.JPG
- File:Star Wars Battle Pod HOTAS - left stick.JPG
- Where is copyright here. Ther is NO copyright, i'm against deletion
- File:Star Wars Battle Pod - left 2.JPG
- File:Star Wars Battle Pod cabinet - left.JPG
- File:Star Wars Battle Pod cabinet - right.JPG
- File:San Diego Comic-Con 2014 Metroid I Swim suit cosplay.jpg
- Where is copiright here ? from this character [10]. Whereeeeeee ??? where, seriously --Archimëa (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:COSTUME, costumes and cosplay are in general not considered copyright violations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:Samus alone 2012 1.jpg
- Metroid est une série de jeux vidéo datant de 1986 pour le plus ancien, la série semble être encors en cours. Le problème n'est pas une protection de droits immatériels sur la photo, mais bien une sur les charactères des jeux. Ce sont des idées de chez Nintendo, et les personnes qui font du Cosplay sont, juridiquement parlant, en infraction des ces droits (mais aucune entreprise n'est si folle d'attaquer les clients et fans qui s'habillent comme un charactère virtuel, mais c'est une autre histoire pour un site internet qui pourrait vendre des images de ce charactère... Nul photographe ne peut licencier des droits sur des figures et des idées qu'il ne possède pas. En principe, cette image est même un candidat pour une suppression express. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- if there is no copyright here [File:Samus and Link at Igromir 2012 1.jpg], there is no copyright on this file.
- Problème de logique: il y a un copyright sur l'image, il est même la base de toute licence y comprise celles de la famille Creative Commons. Il n'y a qu'une façon pour qu'une œuvre ne soit plus soumise à un "copyright" en Europe (ou au moins en Allemange, dont je prends l'Urheberrechtsgesetz comme base): il faut que son créateur soit décédé depuis 70 ans. à ce que je sais, on ne peut pas renoncer à ses droits d'auteur dans les "pays de droit civil" (en contraste sont les pays du "Common law", p. ex. les États-Unis), juste donner une licence gratuite et sans préréquisite.
- i'm against this deletion --Archimëa (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- A cosplayer in a rather simple suit. Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Per COM:COSTUME, costumes and cosplay are in general not considered copyright violations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- A cosplayer in a rather simple suit.
- File:Mario Cosplay - crooped, reverse.jpg
- if there is no copyright here [File:Mario and Sonic - Flickr - Sergey Galyonkin.jpg], there is no copyright on this file. ??
- i'm against this deletion --Archimëa (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I am not sure how COM:COSTUME works with full mascot costumes (and, without an original, I'm not sure if this is cosplay or an official mascot -- if that matters). The policy only mentions specific details, like masks, as copyrightable, exempting full costumes. I think this should be OK but I'm not sure. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:Mario Cosplay - crooped.jpg
- if there is no copyright here [File:Mario and Sonic - Flickr - Sergey Galyonkin.jpg], there is no copyright on this file. ??
- Merci d'avoir indiqué la source de l'image, j'ai demandé une suppression express.
- i'm against this deletion --Archimëa (talk) 13:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not a simple cosplayer but a very detailed original, close to the copyrighted character especially the head. Delete --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not a simple cosplayer but a very detailed original, close to the copyrighted character especially the head.
- Weak keep: As with the one above, I think this should be OK as a costume but I'm not sure. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
- File:Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 USK Rating.png
- I'm against this deletion untill Category:Screenshots exists --Archimëa (talk) 13:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- IMO copyrighted contents artwork. Delete --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- IMO copyrighted contents artwork.
- File:Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Interface.png
- This is an explanatory schema that does not use content from the game (in particular, the background comes from File:SH5 - 3ème personne.png). Orlodrim (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- it's really needed to be blind here. pffff --Archimëa (talk) 13:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- This is an explanatory schema that does not use content from the game (in particular, the background comes from File:SH5 - 3ème personne.png). Orlodrim (talk) 21:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Non, pas aveugle, uniquement une image en thumb sans trop de détails. Je veux bien admettre de m'être trompé, ici, mais j'espère encore d'autres opinions - le placement d'éléments d'un interface peut être une idée protégée... // Well I easily could be mistaken here (I only saw a small thumbnail in VisualFileChange), but I think that it's still worth discussing, as the appearance of an interface could be copyrighted, I guess. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously a screenshot of a copyrighted game. Delete --Kungfuman (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Kungfuman: please take a closer look at the file description. The background image is indeed taken from a copyrighted game (namely Sherlock Holmes Versus Jack the Ripper), but with the appropriate permission (see File:SH5 - 3ème personne.png). Some items and numbers have been inserted over the screenshot to explain the UI of the game Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2 Interface. Those inserted items have been drawn manually, they do not come from a screenshot (here is an actual screenshot of the game). So the question is about whether the placement of the 7 items is copyrighted. This seems extremely unlikely to me. Orlodrim (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Obviously a screenshot of a copyrighted game.
- Non, pas aveugle, uniquement une image en thumb sans trop de détails. Je veux bien admettre de m'être trompé, ici, mais j'espère encore d'autres opinions - le placement d'éléments d'un interface peut être une idée protégée... // Well I easily could be mistaken here (I only saw a small thumbnail in VisualFileChange), but I think that it's still worth discussing, as the appearance of an interface could be copyrighted, I guess. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:Borne d'arcade Winter X Games SnoCross - Ecran titre.jpg
- File:Borne d'arcade Confidential Mission commande.jpg
- Where is copyright problem here --Archimëa (talk) 13:04, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Pas de problème copryright ici, c'est juste. Mais un GROS problème de qualité: c'est de la m**** floue (Et oui, je peux aussi utiliser de l'argot ou un langage... populaire, disons, si besoin était.... // Actually no copyright problem, but still a heavy quality issue: badly blurred. Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- File:Borne d'arcade Confidential Mission.jpg
File:Pousse pièces 2.jpg- Which part exactly would be problematic in this picture? Orlodrim (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well, actually nothing. I guess that it remained selected by error in the VisualFileChange window. I'll remove the DR on the file. Grand-Duc (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any copyrighted parts/artwork here. Some geometrical parts. And the main focus is in the middle with the coins. Keep--Kungfuman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can't see any copyrighted parts/artwork here. Some geometrical parts. And the main focus is in the middle with the coins.
- File:Pousse pièces.jpg
- File:Sega Rally Championship.jpg
- File:Time Crisis II.jpg
- File:Wave Runner.jpg
- File:Manx TT Superbike.jpg
- File:Winter X Games SnoCross.jpg
- File:Terminator Salvation.jpg
- The copyrighted screen content is very small (and could be blackened out), so IMO de minimis here. The rest is hardware (like game consoles or other cabinets) and should be kept Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The copyrighted screen content is very small (and could be blackened out), so IMO de minimis here. The rest is hardware (like game consoles or other cabinets) and should be kept
- File:Sega Rally 3 Arcade Cabinet.jpg
- File:Mario Kart Arcade GP Cabinet.jpg
- File:Girl playing Mario Kart Arcade GP.jpg
- The copyrighted screen content is very small (and could be blackened out) , so IMO de minimis here. The rest is hardware (like game consoles or other cabinets) and should be kept Keep --Kungfuman (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- The copyrighted screen content is very small (and could be blackened out) , so IMO de minimis here. The rest is hardware (like game consoles or other cabinets) and should be kept
Grand-Duc (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all files which are violating commons policyes (a lot!). A lot of issues here: COM:L, COM:TOYS, COM:DW, COM:SCOPE... --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Added some explanations in the uploader's language, please ping me if there's a need for translations. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I haven't checked all images. Some are clearly cv like the toys. At least the images from a distance that show few parts of artwork or screens should be kept. --Kungfuman (talk) 12:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Notes to various items. The shapes of the consoles have a copyright, so it is not just the screens we must look at. THe written instructions also have a copyright. Costumes do not have a copyright in the USA, but masks do. Costumes are utilitarian even if bizarre, but masks are never utilitarian (except to bank robbers, but the Copyright Office doesn't count that). . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
On this arcade machine, I'm unsure if de minimis is applicable for the decorations or not. Assuming protection, this would warrant deletion. Grand-Duc (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Small image, missing EXIF, unsure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Found on this website and many others. I don't think this is true own work. Edoderoo (talk) 08:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Small image missing EXIF, unsure if own work Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if I respond in the correct wiki-envoriment, i'm new at this.
- But i can confirm it is my own work. If you watch my FB, you will find some more pictures of the same series I shot in my own back-garden.
- No reason te delete the page.
- Actually, I was quite proud that NOS used the picture today !
- If you can explain to me whet "EXIF" means, i can try and show that EXIF-info and prove that it's mine
- This youtube video on my own channel might convince you and others as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRFacaAY3M
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPRFacaAY3M
- Ruud van Dam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud van Dam (talk • contribs)
- @Ruud van Dam: Since this image is in low-quality, we feared it was made by someone else (and thus you're not eligible to release the rights). Could you please post a link to the high-quality picture, so that we can verify whether what you said is true?
- U mag overigens ook in het Nederlands antwoorden. Zowel Sjoerddebruin als ik verstaan en communiceren in die taal.
Trijnsteltalk 14:11, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Ah, gewoon in het nederlands: ik help dolgraag, maar ik weet gewoonweg even niet hoe ik die originele foto ergens beschikbaar maak op het net en een link kan aangeven. Ik wil gewoon helpen een een fraaie foto uploaden en heb eigenlijk niet zo'n trek ik zoveel gedoe. Nogmaals, ik help graag, maar is die youtubelink niet bewijs genoeg dan. Anders mijn FB wellicht: www.facebook.com/kookcarrousel, daar staan ook verschillende foto's uit diezelfde serie. ik hoop dat dat genoeg is. Of geef me een mailadres of zo waar in de originele foto naar toe kan sturen, ook goed wat mij betreft. Volgens mij is het gelukt en werkt deze link naar picasa: https://picasaweb.google.com/103997772122350605349/InstantUpload#6264750809535829890 En deze is volgens mij Public: https://picasaweb.google.com/103997772122350605349/2015120502 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud van Dam (talk • contribs)
- @Ruud van Dam: nou, graag! Zou u de originele foto (hoge resolutie) naar permissions-nl
wikimedia.org kunnen sturen? Trijnsteltalk 20:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Foto is verzonden naar het mailadres.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ruud van Dam (talk • contribs)
- Zie ticket:2016032910003881. Ticket heb ik zojuist toegewezen aan Trijnstel. Mbch331 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Ruud van Dam: Dank u wel, maar dit is een high-res afbeelding van File:Worstenbroodje.jpg... Kunt u een hogere resolutie-afbeelding van File:Brabants worstenbroodje.jpg sturen alstublieft? Trijnsteltalk 22:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: The image appears at much higher resolution at http://siris.nl/artikel/18453923/verkiezing-lekkerste-worstenbroodje-van-asten with a copyright notice. The OTRS ticket does nothing for this image. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
DPR and LPR flags
[edit]- File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg
- File:Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.png
- File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg
- File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg
- File:Variant Flag of the Donetsk Republic Organisation.svg
- File:Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.png
- File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg
- File:Герб Луганской Народной республики.jpg
- File:COA LPR Jun 2014.svg
- File:COA LPR oct 2014.svg
We do not know who is the real and primordial author of these flags. And we can not guarantee that these flags are authentic symbols of DPR and LPR. So in this case we have copyvio or fake symbols. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
+ see old requests and arguments:
- Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Flags of Donetsk People's Republic
- "These are not trivial, these images are results of work of some people, artistic ideas of some people. --Yuriy Kvach"
- Commons:Deletion requests/File:Official flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.png
- These symbols are real, and obvious derivatives from Russian and Ukrainian symbols. Keep Fry1989 eh? 23:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, they are not obvious derivatives! Did you even try to look at them? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain. File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg for example is the Russian eagle with an orb instead of the Romanov crowns, and the shield in the centre has the coat of arms of Kiev instead of St George. Looks like a derivative to me. Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- This one, for example, has the ribbon with the inscription too. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Please explain. File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg for example is the Russian eagle with an orb instead of the Romanov crowns, and the shield in the centre has the coat of arms of Kiev instead of St George. Looks like a derivative to me. Fry1989 eh? 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, they are not obvious derivatives! Did you even try to look at them? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - Yes, I believe all of us looked at them. The original DPR flag and coat of arms are especially a derivative of the Donetsk Republic organization flag and Russian coat of arms. The original LPR coat of arms is a derivative of the Luhansk Oblast coat of arms. Also, all of the files you've placed on deletion are the same ones that anybody could find in 2014 (for the old ones) or currently on their websites, documents, videos, parades, etc. So I don't understand this naive notion of "we can not guarantee that these flags are authentic symbols". This would also leave an empty space in the infoboxes since all battles include one of those flags. If the no author part is bothering you, go over to the Syrian Civil War articles and check out the dozens of rebel flags that have unknown authors. SkoraPobeda (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- "The original DPR flag and coat of arms…" — Show me please which of these ten images represent the "original" symbols. All of them? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean by original is that both the DPR and LPR had a different flag and coat of arms in the beginning of 2014: DPR flag 1, DPR COA 1, LPR flag 1, LPR COA 1, and then it was changed in late 2014: DPR flag 2, DPR COA 2, LPR flag 3, LPR COA 3 (LPR flag and COA was changed 3 times). After the new DPR symbols were created, they were derivatives of the older symbols. So now it seems to me that the white color of the DPR eagle is what's pushing you to delete them. DPR COA 1 and Donetsk Republic flag are clearly derivatives of the Russian COA, which itself has a white variant version. The definition of derivative is something that is based on another source, it doesn't have to be an exact replica. See for example my Ukrainian VDV flag, it's based off of the Russian VDV one. I believe these deletions are counterproductive, because anybody who does a quick search will see that they were/are officially used by the DPR and LPR. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of these derivative works have some changes (creative elements) introduced by some unknown authors. These changes are the objects of copyright. File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg & File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg have the ribbon and the artistic inscription. File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg & File:Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.png have the unknown mutant bird which is not equal to free russian mutant bird. And so on. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the ribbon and inscription changes doesn't make it a non-derivative. I'm seriously starting to think that this whole deletion request is based on POV, citing how you call the double-headed eagle a "russian mutant bird". There is no question about the fact that they are officially used by the DPR and LPR, plus it will affect every single War in Donbass infobox if deleted. This whole copyright issue wouldn't be a problem if there was an official DPR or LPR license, but the closest thing to that for now is the "insignia" license. All of the Ukrainian volunteer battalion flags and other insignia have unknown authors as well, but yet they are protected by the "PD-UA-exempt" license. I would like to invite MrPenguin20, Elevatorrailfan, Butko, Полиционер, Iryna Harpy, and RGloucester to this conversation for their views on this because I feel it is a controversial deletion request. Instead of fighting, it would be a great solution if we were to finally create the DPR and LPR license, as I've tried before and only found a temporary solution, the "insignia" license. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the ribbons, the artistic inscriptions, the unknown birds added to free images by unknown authors make derivative works non-free. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the ribbon and inscription changes doesn't make it a non-derivative. I'm seriously starting to think that this whole deletion request is based on POV, citing how you call the double-headed eagle a "russian mutant bird". There is no question about the fact that they are officially used by the DPR and LPR, plus it will affect every single War in Donbass infobox if deleted. This whole copyright issue wouldn't be a problem if there was an official DPR or LPR license, but the closest thing to that for now is the "insignia" license. All of the Ukrainian volunteer battalion flags and other insignia have unknown authors as well, but yet they are protected by the "PD-UA-exempt" license. I would like to invite MrPenguin20, Elevatorrailfan, Butko, Полиционер, Iryna Harpy, and RGloucester to this conversation for their views on this because I feel it is a controversial deletion request. Instead of fighting, it would be a great solution if we were to finally create the DPR and LPR license, as I've tried before and only found a temporary solution, the "insignia" license. SkoraPobeda (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- All of these derivative works have some changes (creative elements) introduced by some unknown authors. These changes are the objects of copyright. File:Coat of Arms of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg & File:Flag of the Donetsk Republic (Organisation).svg have the ribbon and the artistic inscription. File:New Donetsk Peoples Republic flag.svg & File:Official Donetsk People's Republic coat of arms.png have the unknown mutant bird which is not equal to free russian mutant bird. And so on. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- What I mean by original is that both the DPR and LPR had a different flag and coat of arms in the beginning of 2014: DPR flag 1, DPR COA 1, LPR flag 1, LPR COA 1, and then it was changed in late 2014: DPR flag 2, DPR COA 2, LPR flag 3, LPR COA 3 (LPR flag and COA was changed 3 times). After the new DPR symbols were created, they were derivatives of the older symbols. So now it seems to me that the white color of the DPR eagle is what's pushing you to delete them. DPR COA 1 and Donetsk Republic flag are clearly derivatives of the Russian COA, which itself has a white variant version. The definition of derivative is something that is based on another source, it doesn't have to be an exact replica. See for example my Ukrainian VDV flag, it's based off of the Russian VDV one. I believe these deletions are counterproductive, because anybody who does a quick search will see that they were/are officially used by the DPR and LPR. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- "The original DPR flag and coat of arms…" — Show me please which of these ten images represent the "original" symbols. All of them? --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Flags and coats of arms at first are blazons. And any people can create images depended on blazons. For example, see Category:Flags of Ukraine and try to find flags from official documents or flags from real authors. According to Andrey Purgin, Fyodor Sergeyev (1883–1921) is author of tricolor, which is used as flag of DPR and flag of organisation «Donetsk Republic». See video from Supreme consil of DPR where he is talking about this. So tricolor also in public domain as {{PD-old}}. Files on Commons are combined from public domain elements. Authors who made derivative works are known. You can see them in the descriptions of files. Also you can see sources od public domain elements in descriptions. Flags are authentic. See descriptions of blazons and prooflinks in wikipedia articles: ru:Флаг Донецкой Народной Республики, ru:Флаг Луганской Народной Республики, ru:Герб Донецкой Народной Республики, ru:Герб Луганской Народной Республики; see coats of arms and flag on official site of DPR. See examples of using:
, 
, 
--Butko (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- >Fyodor Sergeyev (1883–1921) is author of tricolor.
- which of them? There are a lot of different flags. And I don't think a terrorist Andrey Purgin is the authority source anyway.
- >Also you can see sources od public domain elements in descriptions.
- But we can't see sources of additional elements. It's because they came not from free images. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Судя по вашим именам, все вы говорите по-русски, нет смысла что-то переводить. Вопрос вот в чем: стоит ли вообще обсуждать авторское право и подлинность предлагаемых к удалению символов ДНР, ЛНР и организации "Донецкая республика" в контексте истинных мотивов участника Yakiv Gluck, ярко выраженных словосочетанием "terrorist Andrey Purgin". При таких мотивах всегда найдется сто причин что-то выставлять на удаление, было бы желание. А что-то доказывать в таких ситуациях - зря тратить время, ибо какие-то авторские права на символы Донбасса, равно как и подлинность этих символов автора инициативы удаления изображений на самом деле не интересуют. Это совершенно очевидно.
- P.S> Ну, кстати, вот это изображение: File:Flag of the Donetsk People's Republic.svg действительно можно удалить, ибо такого флага у ДНР действительно никогда не было, также у ЛНР никогда не было вот такого флага: File:Flag of the Lugansk People's Republic.svg (был похожий флаг с белым орлом со скипетром и державой) --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nicolay, rather than questioning any contributor's good or bad faith in nominating these flags for deletion, I think this has provided an opportunity to demonstrate that COPYVIO is inapplicable for this series of flags and emblems and be done with it. This has been a yo-yo issue for some time with renominations cropping up every few months. It's been demonstrated that copyright is a non-issue and, on the strength of this being demonstrated, a final decision will mean that we don't have to revisit it yet again. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep there are sources. --Panam2014 (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep They are reliably sourced and verifiable. They're most certainly not a random collection of original research signifiers. Every article they're used on has had multiple editors checking on updates, ensuring that they're correct. The RS and V is amply evidenced on the talk pages and talk page archives of English language Wikipedia. As regards the question of being derivative works, I believe that Butko's list of arguments are compelling reasons for retaining them, and that this should supersede any concerns over some 'unknown quantity' copyright violation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- ok, all these images are verifiable. Good. But then all of them are the copies of copyrighted non-free images. Because all of these "symbols" are results of [creative] work of some [unknown] authors. And all of them consist of not only free elements. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, I can't re-render Micky Mouse and claim copyright: he's already under copyright by Disney (or whatever that multinational distribution company call themselves now). The emblems used for the DPR and LPR, as examples, are pre-existing, non-copyrighted emblems created way before the concept of 'copyright' even existed. Re-rendering such symbols doesn't give the artist copyright over the symbol. No one has reinvented the symbols, just replicated them... and replication of symbols or emblems that's been around for a few hundred years can't be a copyright violation, even if they're made up of a few composite emblems/symbols. It's like saying that the re-rendering of a rune or a Cyrillic letter of the alphabet is a copyright violation... In fact, even the fonts used are freeware fonts. I hope that makes sense. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- ok, all these images are verifiable. Good. But then all of them are the copies of copyrighted non-free images. Because all of these "symbols" are results of [creative] work of some [unknown] authors. And all of them consist of not only free elements. --Yakiv Gluck (talk) 01:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_photo_4_الجامع_الأحمدي.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_Yoda_and_Anakin_-_Star_Wars_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_활동_사진_소방헬기2_(2).jpg){kind=link}
_활동_사진_구조사진1.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_4.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
![[9]](http://cdn.studiodaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/tp500-332x480.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_photo_4_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_photo_4_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_photo_3_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B9_%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AD%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Yoda_and_Anakin_-_Star_Wars_(cropped).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Yoda_and_Anakin_-_Star_Wars_(cropped).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_Yoda_and_Anakin_-_Star_Wars_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
_Yoda_and_Anakin_-_Star_Wars_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_%EC%86%8C%EB%B0%A9%ED%97%AC%EA%B8%B02_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_%EC%86%8C%EB%B0%A9%ED%97%AC%EA%B8%B02_(2).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_%EC%86%8C%EB%B0%A9%ED%97%AC%EA%B8%B0_%EC%9D%B8%EB%AA%85%EA%B5%AC%EC%A1%B0.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_%EA%B5%AC%EC%A1%B0%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%841.jpg){kind=link}
_%ED%99%9C%EB%8F%99_%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%84_%EA%B5%AC%EC%A1%B0%EC%82%AC%EC%A7%841.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[10]](http://thegg.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/samus-aran-metroid-1.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
'Kept Per discussion. Drawing a flag or a coat of arms from a blazon does not infringe on previous renderings from the same blazon. See COM:COA . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
These signs all appear to be copies from Spain. Source required. Fry1989 eh? 23:10, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can you link one or two example sources? Basvb (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- For part one, compare File:Spain traffic signal p20.svg and File:Spain traffic signal p25.svg, for part two compare File:Spain traffic signal p21.svg, File:Spain traffic signal p19.svg. Fry1989 eh? 17:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Logos uploaded by Davidtadeo
[edit]- File:Telemax logo 2015.png
- File:VideoRola Logo.png
- File:Golden logo 2012.png
- File:Golden-edge logo.png
- File:Bandamax 2015 Logo.png
- File:Proyecto 40.png
- File:Once.2.png
- File:MundoFOX Latino 2013.png
- File:Ingenio tv logo.png
- File:Gala TV logo 2013.png
- File:Foro TV Logo 2015.png
- File:Teveunam logo.png
- File:Una Voz Con Todos logo 2014.png
- File:Telemax logo 2015.png
- File:Ingenio tv logo.png
- File:Canal del congreso mexico logo.png
Noticed this when cleaning up the en:File:Telemax logo 2015.png filepage. A number of uploads which claim own work, but they are all logos of telecommunication companies it seems. Almost certainly not actual "own works", and a number of them are probably non-free. --Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:49, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep all of them. Most of the logos nominated are from Mexico and seems clearly bellow the TOO, and {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} could apply, except File:MundoFOX Latino 2013.png, that, as a TV channel operated by FOX and {{PD-textlogo}} clearly apply. This DR should be speedy closed and the logos should be nominated case by case. --Amitie 10g (talk) 21:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing on COM:TOO about a Mexican TOO. However, you are right that {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} may apply here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- PD-Coa-Mexico only applies to logo of organizations (either NGO, private, governamental, etc. alone). Companies are not considered to be organizations. Mexican TOO only states something like this: "Unoriginal works, like simple color, are not protected by copyrights"--yes, the law is that ambiguous that basically you rely on a dictionary definition to know what "originial" means. Tbhotch™ 03:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is nothing on COM:TOO about a Mexican TOO. However, you are right that {{PD-Coa-Mexico}} may apply here.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep File:MundoFOX Latino 2013.png is from the United States and is PD-simple. I would probably say File:Once.2.png is PD-simple as well. I do not know about the other logos. Fry1989 eh? 23:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delete, the following: File:VideoRola Logo.png, File:Bandamax 2015 Logo.png, are above of the TOO, even in the US.
Neutral, File:Golden logo 2012.png, File:Golden-edge logo.png, File:Telemax logo 2015.png, File:Una Voz Con Todos logo 2014.png, File:Gala TV logo 2013.png, File:Foro TV Logo 2015.png, may be above Mexican threshold.- Neutral, they belong to governamental entities: File:Teveunam logo.png, File:Once.2.png, File:Canal del congreso mexico logo.png
- Keep, File:Proyecto 40.png, File:Once.2.png, File:Ingenio tv logo.png, tag as PD-text and Trademarked.
- File:MundoFOX Latino 2013.png is an US logo (Californian being specific), not Mexican. Tbhotch™ 03:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept some and deleted some per discussion - Jcb (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Существует файл File:South Aegean Region flag.svg значительно более лучшего качества TheVovaNik (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Существует файл File:South Aegean Region flag.svg значительно более лучшего качества TheVovaNik (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This was not yet out of copyright in Uruguay on 1 January 1996, so it became copyrighted retroactively in the US (URAA). De728631 (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
That said, any other cover images of Peludoro published after 1945 are also affected and should be deleted from Commons. De728631 (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. According to this: "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion. Deleted files can be restored after a discussion in COM:UDR. Potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}".--Zeroth (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Zeroth, files affected by URAA should be tagged consequently but not deleted. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 22:53, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK this applies to existing files only, but according to {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, "images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons. New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted. ... This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012." So maybe it's time to change the template? De728631 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think so. the resolution passed in 2014 just states that "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion, (...) potentially URAA-affected files should be tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}". Perhaps it's time to modify the template, I do not know. It's much older than this new resolution. Anyway it seems to me that a resolution voted by the community has more weight than the text of a template. Banfield - Amenazas aquí 23:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- AFAIK this applies to existing files only, but according to {{Not-PD-US-URAA}}, "images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons. New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted. ... This template should NOT be applied to files uploaded after 1 March 2012." So maybe it's time to change the template? De728631 (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep several reasons:
- URAA itself isn´t reason for delete nothing
- Historical newspapper of Uruguay hosted here, creative commons website sponsored by official organizations of that country, so the template {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} is enough to solve the problem IMHO Ezarateesteban 23:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that the consensus at this page is clear. On the other hand this was entirely about restoring previously deleted files. Commons:URAA-restored copyrights says also that "a mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted". But there is no mere allegation that these cover images are subject to URAA but plain mathematics tell us that 1948 + 50 years = 1998 > 1996. The artwork is original enough for copyright too. Ezarate, please remember that all files at Commons must also be out of copyright or freely licensed in the United States too, so being in the public domain in Uruguay is not sufficient. De728631 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. According to previous resolutions, URAA itself should not be used as the sole reason for image deletion. What is more, these images are in the public domain in their country of origin (Uruguay) and they are hosted in websites supported by the Government. According to previous resolutions, this kind of content may only be removed after receiving a takedown notice for violation of the DMCA. Please keep in mind that there are thousands of images in Commons from Uruguay and other countries in this situation, and the community has already reached a consensus that it would be disastrous to delete them. So please stop starting deletion requests for this kind of contents.--Pepe piton (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation itself, regarding the URAA affected content states (february 2014):
Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.
- Furthermore, the Wikimedia Foundation itself, regarding the URAA affected content states (february 2014):
- So, i think we shouldn't try to be "more Catholic than the Pope", and keep this image as we already did with the thousands others in the same situation.--Zeroth (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- You all seem to miss that the big URAA discussion was about the massive restoration of files that had previously been deleted on Commons. It was not about giving anyone a free ticket to upload new content that is affected by URAA. Moreover, a motion to relax the precautionary principle and upload more locally PD images regardless of their URAA status has been rejected by the community. And, for the record, the file(s) we are debating here were uploaded just 2 days ago. De728631 (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- So, i think we shouldn't try to be "more Catholic than the Pope", and keep this image as we already did with the thousands others in the same situation.--Zeroth (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. I agree with the point of view that the resolution was not deleting images that are in the public domain in their country of origin. Peloduro is in the public domain in Uruguay and, moreover, there is no any Peloduro copyright holder in the United States. On one side is the actual public interest to access these public domain images. On the other side is a non-existent copyright holder that, even if he/she existed, Wikimedia Foundation is legally protected by the Notice and Takedown mechanism. Not deleting PD images is particularly relevant for countries of the Global South like Uruguay, which in many cases depend on Commons to host their digital heritage. Copyright fundamentalism is especially damaging to Global South heritage. A community project like Commons, based on the public interest, should take this into account.--Señoritaleona (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Peloduro features a significant part of Uruguayan's history that remained unknown to new generations until this year that Julio E. Suárez is in PD in Uruguay. It's not comprhensible that Commons give priority to an inexistent copyright holder over the heritage for the new generation. We're trying to give them a revision of our political and humoristic history not to damage any person or Institution. So please, let's be flexible with the application of URAA in Commons to certain images in order to privilege public access to culture.--Miacara76 (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as above. --Yann (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
- We don't have sufficient information to determine if this file is affected by URAA, so there isn't sufficient doubt and shouldn't be deleted for that reason. Yann (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The previous DR completely ignored the question of if this file is actually under copyright in the US, and thus a violation of the licensing policy. It was also closed before the required time had elapsed, by an admin who was part of wheel warring about the second URAA DR. Discussion about the actual copyright status of the file, and it's compliance with the licensing policy, is needed. Revent (talk) 00:54, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --There is a clear consensus that images should not be removed from Commons only because of URAA. Mechanical application of URAA puts in risk digital heritage from many countries, and moreover, infringes users rights, while the material itself doesn't represent a real threat for Commons. No rights are violated in USA. There is not any Peloduro right holder or licensee in USA. Peloduro was never published in the United States. It is in public domain in its country or origin, and nobody will ever claim rights for it. So, please, apply common sense, like is usual on our community, rather than a tight and biased interpretation of the USA law.--Señoritaleona (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the copyright was restored by URAA - has anyone contested ~that it was - then we can only keep this if there is a free license attached. As noted on COM:PCP and COM:L we can't and won't host files that are non-free in the US. That said, http://autores.uy/ the source site indicated is freely licensed (CC-BY-SA 4.0); does this license apply to the file itself too? This was not analyzed at depth in the first DR, I am kind of uncertain/sceptical myself, the site may be just hosting other people's work but I don't have time for a careful analysis myself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Closing comment. Right now, this file appears to be the subject of discussion in two different places: COM:AN and here. Splitting discussions is a really bad idea; let's talk about it in one place. Please don't un-close this discussion or start a third DR until the other discussions are done, but once that happens, feel free to do either one. And please don't interpret my words as taking anyone's side in this situation; I just want to ensure that we don't have two parallel discussions. Nyttend (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Now that the discussion at AN is closed, reopening this with the analysis I stated there. I do not see how this file can possibly be PD in the United States.... if unaffected by the URAA, it's simply 'copyrighted'. Reventtalk 13:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
(reposted from AN) WMF legal indicated that we should look at the guidelines given at Commons:Deletion_requests/All_files_copyrighted_in_the_US_under_the_URAA#Legal_team.27s_statement, and the actual statute, when assessing if a file is affected by the URAA. This is an attempt to actually do so. Comments, and debate of the specific points, are welcome, but please take arguments about the URAA itself, or Commons policies, to the above subsection.
- Points of fact: The work was published in Uruguay on 7 July 1948. The author was Julio Emilio Suárez, a citizen of Uruguay, who died in 1965. Uruguay, and the US, were at that point in time both signatories to the "Buenos Aires Convention", which provided for mutual recognition of copyrights "where the work carries a notice containing a statement of reservation of rights" (this treaty was the source of the phrase 'all rights reserved'). There was at no point in time, prior to of after this date, a 'bilateral copyright treaty' between the two nations.
- 1. Where is the source country of the work?
- Per the BAC - The nation of first publication, or in cases of simultaneous publication that which gives the shorter term.
- Per the URAA - The 'eligible country' in which the work was first published. (Uruguay seems to clearly be an 'eligible country', as it joined the Berne Convention in 1967)
- There is no indication, or argument, that the work was ever published outside of Uruguay, so it clearly appears to be the source nation.
- 2. When was the work originally created?
- June 1948, or shortly before.
- 3. Did the work have copyright protection in its source country on the date of restoration?
- Yes, clearly. The author died in 1965, and the copyright term in Uruguay is 50 years pma. The work did not enter the public domain in Uruguay until 2016, and Uruguay was a member of the Berne Convention long prior to 1 January 1996.
- 4. Why did the work enter the public domain in the U.S.?
- There are three potential reasons that would make the work eligible for restoration, and two (lack of subject matter protection, and national ineligibility) clearly do not apply. The remaining one is 'failure to comply with formalities in the U.S.'
- This has not, at this point, been demonstrated. We do not know if the work contained a copyright notice, if it was registered, or if it was renewed. Without actually establishing those points, the status remains ambiguous. To establish this would need a check of the Catalog of Copyright Entries. It is unproven that the work ever entered the PD in the US.
- The work, if originally published 'in compliance with the formalities', and then not renewed, had a US copyright that expired on 1 January 1977, at which point renewal was not automatic. Entering the PD due to non-renewal would cause the work to have a restored copyright.
However: If point 4 fails, and the work did not enter the PD in the US prior to 1 January 1996, then it has a US copyright, as a 1948 work, that lasts until 1 January 2044. There seems to be no way that this work is PD in the US. Revent (talk)
Keep I thought this discussion was over. The status of the image has been heavily discussed and the consensus is to keep the image, for the reasons detailed above. I think it is not good practice reopening closed discussions without new evidence, and moving the discussions from one place to another endlessly. For the record, I copy and paste my analysis at the discussion at AN:
- "Wikimedia Foundation states in February 2014:
'Indeed, to date, we have not received a single takedown notice under the URAA. A valid notice would provide us with the facts necessary to make a determination under the URAA. It requires information that may not be available to a Commons volunteer trying to make a decision without a takedown notice. So WMF does not see a reason to delete content simply because of general concern about the URAA. If we receive a valid takedown notice or get actual knowledge of infringement, we will do a full legal analysis of the work based on all the relevant information that is presented in that notice and vigorously resist any invalid notices.'
- I think it is pretty obvious that we should apply this WMF advice in this situation, since the copyright status of this image is very complex: the image is in public domain in its country of origin and there are not copyright holders nor licensees in the US. The argument in favour of the deletion is abstract and is not based on any concern, but in a mechanical application of URAA, while this case involves much complexity. In cases like this, Commons volunteers should not delete the content until WMF receives a valid takedown notice and they do a full legal analysis
- The fact is that the work is in the public domain in its country of origin, there are no copyright holders, it was made available by an officialy supported website in its country of origin and it was never published in the USA. Because of these factors, a mechanical interpretation of URAA does not apply. WMF 2014 statement clearly reaffirms this."--Pepe piton (talk) 15:29, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Pepe piton: Simply saying again that we should just avoid the issue, instead of doing the kind of analysis that we were given specific guidance on how to do, is not particularly helpful. As was discussed (at length) at AN, a restored US copyright would have come into existence on the URAA date, and has nothing to do with the copyright status in the source country after that date... it is a completely separate 'piece of property' from the copyright in the source nation. The owner of that copyright is perfectly able to enforce it in the United States, regardless of where they live, or if it was published in the US. The PRP (and the consensus regarding it at the last RFC) is that we cannot use some 'nobody will ever try to enforce it' argument in cases like this.
- Please discuss the actual copyright status of 'this particular work' instead of making blanket statements about the URAA. I'm perfectly fine with it being kept if there is some reasonable chance that it's actually PD in the US, but I don't see, to be honest, how it can be.... an argument that the URAA does not apply seems to be an argument that it was never PD in the US, and we definitely cannot keep it if that is the case.
- I am not stating a 'general concern' about the URAA. I am explaining, explicitly, why I don't think this work is in the public domain in the US. We don't need to argue here 'about the URAA', we need to talk about if this specific file is in compliance with the licensing policy, or if it's truly ambiguous. Just 'claiming' it's ambiguous, without actually discussing it, is not what we were instructed to do by legal. Please stop. Reventtalk 20:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Nothing I see seems to indicate that the website that published this image owns, or ever owned, either the Uruguayan or US copyright in this work.... they simply seem to have published it, in Uruguay, after it entered the public domain there. If that is the case, then they can't actually CC-license the image itself. Reventtalk 21:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- FYI, the magazine hasn't any copyright mark of sorts.--Zeroth (talk) 00:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Zeroth: Thanks. Do you know if it contained the phrase "Todos los derechos reservados" near the publication information? Under the Buenos Aires Convention, that would be sufficient 'notice' if it complied with Uruguayan law, at least to get an initial 28-year US term. Reventtalk 01:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't have any text that could be interpreted as a copyright claim.--Zeroth (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Zeroth: Thanks. Do you know if it contained the phrase "Todos los derechos reservados" near the publication information? Under the Buenos Aires Convention, that would be sufficient 'notice' if it complied with Uruguayan law, at least to get an initial 28-year US term. Reventtalk 01:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep Previous discussions about application of URAA in this case, demonstrate that there is no reason for delete this file from Commons. Mechanical and tight application of URAA in this -and other thousands of cases- annihilates the digital heritage and inhibits the use of works that are in PD. If a non-existent rightholder appears, he or she could invoke "notice and take down" mechanism, which protects Commons from legal threats. The users who were involved in the many threads that you have open in differents places already gave a lot of reasons to keep this specific work. So, please, in the name of good faith and the common sense that guides our community, be reasonable and try to take on account the arguments (and time) from different people who have contributed in this case.--Señoritaleona (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Señoritaleona: The WMF has the exact same protection in the case of any copyvio on Commons... should we just ignore them all? I suggest you read COM:PRP.... the community as a whole emphatically rejected relaxing that policy for URAA cases, after a massive discussion that lasted months, and a DR is not a 'vote'... if you want to change the policy, you should take it back to the community. If this work is copyrighted in the US, then that is 'clearly' a reason to delete it. None of the people who have argued to keep this file seem to have even attempted to claim that it's not copyrighted in the US, instead, it's just the same arguments about ignoring the URAA, and ignoring half of what we were told by Legal, to just 'keep stuff' even if it's copyrighted. We should not be lying to people and telling them a work is PD in the US unless we have made a good faith effort to know if that's actually true.... otherwise, we might as well just give up and keep every single copyvio.
- Your claim that it's somehow 'annihilating the digital heritage' is silly. The file is on the Uruguayan website, and on the Internet Archive, visible from Google on both, and will remain there regardless of what happens to it here. The 'only' relevant issue is if it's copyrighted in the US, and you honestly seem to be admitting that it probably is and just 'voting' to keep it anyhow. Reventtalk 02:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The whole issue is whether it was published in the US, when, and with notice or not. All this is quite difficult to determine, and that's why WMF opinion is relevant. Now I won't speculate in one way or the other about this potential US publication. If you are able to get a definitive answer, great, and good luck about that... Regards, Yann (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Yann: As I mentioned on IRC the other day, I'm not just after 'deleting stuff', I just really think that we need to actually decide on a sort of 'best practice' process for looking at the ~6600 files that are actually marked as 'Not-PD-US-URAA', and also re-assessing the ~1100 files that were actually deleted on URAA grounds (hundreds of which were just a single-sentence assertion based on the date). It's really not acceptable to have several thousand files that are actually 'marked' on the file page as policy violations, and probably tens of thousands of others that are 'potentially' URAA-affected and not marked...this is a cleanup task that has been sitting in limbo for years now.
- I strongly think, however, that we cannot really 'assume' that, in that absence of any evidence for a US publication, that one occurred.... it seems most likely that 'most' non-US works, especially ones not in English, would never have been published in the US. If we do a best effort search, and find no such evidence, that is a different situation that where the claim that it did not happen is merely an assertion.
- I intend to (before this gets closed) actually do a search of the CCE for any relevant entries, though I think this was quite unlikely to have been simultaneously published. The lack of a 'Buenos Aires Convention' reservation of rights (noted above by @Zeroth: ) would indicate that it was 'never' protected in the US, due to a failure to comply with the formalities, and so would have been restored. Worldcat indicates that a book of Suárez's comics, also named Peloduro, was published in Montevideo (Uruguay) in 1969, but all extant copies of that reprinting shown in library catalogs are also shown as having been published in Uruguay... that seems, in my opinion, to make it even less likely that the originals were published anywhere else.
- The only way I can see that this work can be PD in the US is if it was actually 'published' in the US in June or July 1948 (completely separately for the Uruguayan publication that did not comply with the formalities) and then not renewed. I'll comment below after I check the CCE. Reventtalk 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, You copyright assessment may be right. If we extend that to all files in the same origin, we will have to delete a lot of files. I suggest the Spanish Wikipedia to allow upload locally for such files, like the French Wikipedia does for files affected by the no-FoP French law. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- I think that it would be an excellent idea for the Spanish Wikipedia to allow local uploads for URAA-affected works, though I'm not sure if Legal would be okay with it (since the also run from a US-based server). Reventtalk 14:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, You copyright assessment may be right. If we extend that to all files in the same origin, we will have to delete a lot of files. I suggest the Spanish Wikipedia to allow upload locally for such files, like the French Wikipedia does for files affected by the no-FoP French law. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Delete User:Revent has made out an exceptionally strong and lucid case for deletion under existing Commons policy. Either somebody produces the evidence to justify a keep, or else it must be deleted under COM:PRP. The WMF has clearly left it to the Commons community and its our solemn role to ensure that only free / PD media is hosted here. Unfitlouie (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep The image is in public domain in Uruguay, Suárez's country of origin. Moreover, the magazine has never been published in USA. I think applicating mechanically URAA is nonsense, we shall wait takedown notices, if it is the case, and not being deleting important and useful images.--Miacara76 (talk) 00:52, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Miacara76: The PRP specifically states that 'nobody has complained', or even 'nobody is likely to complain' are not valid reasons to keep a work. The community emphatically rejected relaxing that with regards to URAA works. The instruction from legal was that we wait for a takedown notice 'if and only if' the status was still ambiguous after we looked at the information we could find, on the grounds that the notice would contain the missing information. If the work was indeed never published in the US (as you state) then it is clearly copyrighted in the US under the URAA, and so this is basically a vote that we either ignore US law (which we cannot do, per the legal status of the WMF as a US-based organization) or that we change policy to let us ignore US law. Neither is 'admissible' at a DR... those are policy issues that the wider community has already decided. Per legal... "there will be cases when a foreign work is in the public domain in the source country, but still under copyright protection in the United States. Unless permission is given by the author or copyright holder, these works should not be posted on Commons pursuant to US law and community policies." (see Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons) Reventtalk 02:16, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Miacara76: This DR is about this work (ie. not a generic URAA delete discussion) and the claimed PD status in Uruguay is irrelevant to its URAA restored copyright in US w.e.f 1948. The burden is on you (per COM:EVID) to disprove this proposition. Any file still under US copyright cannot be uploaded to / retained on Commons without permission. Unfitlouie (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Unfitlouie: In fact, the burden is on you because of this. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the image is in PD but you have a vague concern about URAA. So WMF recommendation applies.--Pepe piton (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Pepe piton: Per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons and the policy principle that the burden of evidence is on those seeking to keep, you are obliged to counter User:Revent with evidence. User:Revent has clearly stated that diligent searches fail to show up registration. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence that the image is in public domain. Moreover, a clear majority of community members have given their opinion about keeping the image. Besides, this request had been previously closed, and the decision was to keep the image. So, the burden is on you.--Pepe piton (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence that the work became PD in Uruguay ~20 years after the URAA date has nothing to do with the question here. Nobody has shown any reason to believe that the file is not copyrighted in the US, or seems to have even attempted to do so. Why not try to find some reason to believe the work was not actually restored instead of just 'voting'? A DR is not a vote. Reventtalk 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a lot of arguments about why the image must be kept. If it was necessary, Zeroth and I shared new evidence about the lack of registration or copyright marks. It's not a vote, it's an opinion based on arguments and evidence, and a lot of people gave their opinion that the image must be kept. In fact, you have reopened a closed discussion twice. --Pepe piton (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- If the work was copyrighted in Uruguay when published (a copyright that would not have expired until the end of 2015), and did not have a 'reservation of rights', then it would have been PD in the US due to a 'failure to comply with the formalities' until the URAA restored it's US copyright in 1996, and cannot be on Commons per the licensing policy (and legal) unless the owners of that US copyright freely license it. Restoring copyright in non-US works that were not published with a notice was the main purpose of the stupid law. As far as me 'reopening a closed discussion twice', reread Nyttend's close. Reventtalk 15:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are a lot of arguments about why the image must be kept. If it was necessary, Zeroth and I shared new evidence about the lack of registration or copyright marks. It's not a vote, it's an opinion based on arguments and evidence, and a lot of people gave their opinion that the image must be kept. In fact, you have reopened a closed discussion twice. --Pepe piton (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- Evidence that the work became PD in Uruguay ~20 years after the URAA date has nothing to do with the question here. Nobody has shown any reason to believe that the file is not copyrighted in the US, or seems to have even attempted to do so. Why not try to find some reason to believe the work was not actually restored instead of just 'voting'? A DR is not a vote. Reventtalk 14:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is plenty of evidence that the image is in public domain. Moreover, a clear majority of community members have given their opinion about keeping the image. Besides, this request had been previously closed, and the decision was to keep the image. So, the burden is on you.--Pepe piton (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Pepe piton: Per https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Use_of_Foreign_Works_Restored_under_the_URAA_on_Commons and the policy principle that the burden of evidence is on those seeking to keep, you are obliged to counter User:Revent with evidence. User:Revent has clearly stated that diligent searches fail to show up registration. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Unfitlouie: In fact, the burden is on you because of this. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the image is in PD but you have a vague concern about URAA. So WMF recommendation applies.--Pepe piton (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Miacara76: This DR is about this work (ie. not a generic URAA delete discussion) and the claimed PD status in Uruguay is irrelevant to its URAA restored copyright in US w.e.f 1948. The burden is on you (per COM:EVID) to disprove this proposition. Any file still under US copyright cannot be uploaded to / retained on Commons without permission. Unfitlouie (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment 'For the record', a check of the scanned copies of the Catalog of Copyright Entries, specifically parts 1B (Pamphlets, Serials, and Contributions to Periodicals) and 2 (Periodicals) for the period 1947 to 1950 shows no registrations under the name "Peloduro", or for the author "Suárez", or anything even remotely similar. Reventtalk 03:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment I had access to several numbers of Peloduro magazine and, as User:Zeroth says, thay haven't got copyright mark. I also searched at the official online legal database of Uruguay and I haven't found any copyright registration for Peloduro magazine. Uruguay Copyright Act from 1937 required registration to give copyright protection (see article 6). That provision wasn't changed until 2003. So it is highly probable that Peloduro magazine hasn't ever have copyright.--Pepe piton (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Art.6/1937 speaks of registration for copyright protection. The position is analogous to the corresponding US law. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- My understanding (from my really bad Spanish, and a translation) is that the 1937 law did not actually require a copyright notice... the 'reservation of rights' statement (Todos los derechos reservados) and compliance with Uruguayan law would would be the requirements for a 1948 copyright in the US under the Buenos Aires Convention... the work would have been considered to have 'complied with the formalities' even without a US-style notice or US registration. If it was actually never copyrighted in Uruguay (and thus PD there on the URAA date) then it would not have a restored US copyright, but... I am dubious, since it was apparently not published in Uruguay 'as PD' until after the 50-year-pma term would have expired. Reventtalk 15:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Keep You clearly cannot re-open discussions over and over simply because you didn't like the results you got the first time. This is clearly a demonstration of the inaccurate belief that because you feel part of a community, you represent it as a whole. This is not a community-driven decision, this is just a troll reopening a debate that it's clearly consolidated for all the reasons and arguments already stated above, and it should be dismissed ASAP. --Scanno (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment This is a serious issue with legal implications for entire community. Please don't trivialise it with personal remarks. Unfitlouie (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment This is an example of the page that includes the legal information of Peloduro magazine. It doesn't have any copyright mark. I also searched again more carefully at the IMPO official online legal database of Uruguay and I haven't found any copyright registration for Peloduro magazine. It is almost sure that there was no registration. IMPO database is from 1830 to date, and it includes copyright registrations, so if the magazine was registered anytime, it should be listed there.--Pepe piton (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uruguay signed the Berne Convention in 1967, and earlier conventions also. It is illegal under the Berne convention for any signatory member state to require registration to grant copyright. Your argument is fallacious and your research irrelevant. The issue being discussed here is the extended US copyright under URAA regime post 1996. As we have discussed earlier, the 1937 Act only required registration for copyright enforcement, the subsequent Act belatedly corrected the divergence to ensure TRIPPS compliance. Unfitlouie (talk) 11:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Uruguay law wasn't modified until 2003.--Pepe piton (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- In fact, it was not my argument. My argument was stated in previous discussions. But I did the research since Revent mentioned that, and now it's quite clear that Peloduro magazine didn't comply with the registration requirement under US and Uruguay law.--Pepe piton (talk) 13:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- US law never actually 'required' registration, other than as a prerequisite to an infringement claim or a renewal, and non-US works that received a US term under a treaty were usually not registered (or renewed). It was simply worth checking, just in case. As far as the argument that this was never copyrighted un Uruguay, I really don't know (but am dubious). If so, it would not have a restored copyright, obviously. Reventtalk 13:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per prior arguments starting with Zeroth and continuing. If the file is public domain in its country of origin then it seems absurd to assert that technicalities in another country can give it copyright status. --GRuban (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The WMF doesn't agree with your sentiments. See https://torrentfreak.com/u-s-copyright-law-forces-wikimedia-to-remove-public-domain-anne-frank-diary-160211/ Unfitlouie (talk) 01:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: non USA-work - per obvious consensus in 3 DRs. --Jcb (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Есть уже существующий файл File:BG-Burgas flag.png, данный же - его худшая копия TheVovaNik (talk) 11:27, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Есть уже существующий файл File:Varna flag.png, данный же - его худшая копия TheVovaNik (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Почти копия File:Larnaca-Municipality.jpg уже существующего. Формально разрешение хоть и больше, но качество почти такое же. TheVovaNik (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Kept: in use together in ru:Ларнака. --Jcb (talk) 21:27, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Εὐθυμένης as Logo Yann (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted but set up a redirect to File:Larnaca-Municipality.jpg, which is essentially a duplicate of this (however, I nominated that one for deletion as a probably copyvio). —holly {chat} 21:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Версия в векторе File:Flag of Cherkasy Oblast.svg значительно более лучшего качества. TheVovaNik (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation, no OTRS. 37.144.145.16 20:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Look the permission field. Taivo (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
- Keep There is no copyright violation here. The permission had been provided. Once again I copypast it below:
- We are copyright owners of the image of Alexander Esenin-Volpin currently posted at
- http://www.index.org.ru/archives/images/volpin.jpg
- and used in the document http://index.org.ru/archives/volpin.html
- and we allow the free use of this image while the source is attributed,
- assuming conditions specified at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ :
- We hope, such a permission is sufficient to post the image at wikimedia resource,
- as well as in other sites.
- May 8, 2010
- Evgeny Balychev, by the permission and the order of
- Naum Nim, Top editor of the journal "Index/Dos'e na Tsenzuru"
- Could you please send this permission to COM:OTRS? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
- How many times should we ask the permission from the copyright owners? Each time, when some soviet veteran runs the deletion bot? Each time, when some administrators try to protect the tights of the copyright holder and make the rules more strict? Domitori (talk) 06:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Kept: Seems to be permission Natuur12 (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
No OTRS permission from photographer. A talk with administrator who kept it before re-nominating can be found here. 95.28.24.231 19:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I'm sorry, but I see no evidence of permission. Mostly the copyright holder is the photographer, not some random 'we'. Yann requested the 'permission' to be sent to OTRS over a year ago. Apparently we received nothing. --Jcb (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)