Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/04/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Jennifer_Spry_2010_www.birdlife.org.au.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
_City_3-door_hatchback_(2008-11-11).jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_101,_at_Eglin_Air_Force_Base,_Fla.,_Oct._1,_2013_131001-N-ZZ999-001.jpg){kind=link}
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-09-15).jpg){kind=link}
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-06-25).jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is an ofend to Romanians. 122.58.159.253 07:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Kept: I don't know how this offend Romanians. Not a valid reason for deletion. ★ Poké95 08:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
It's very offensive for Romanian people to be described as a gypsy land :( 2A02:2F05:6EFF:FFFF:0:0:6471:442E 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- It was requested of me to create this map. Certainly no offence was meant towards Romania and the Romanian people. I don't object to its deletion, as I have no interest in the file. Fry1989 eh? 23:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
- This is not a reason for deletion. We have rainbow flags, and they do not suggest that all the people in that country are LGBT, we have other combination flags and they are kept.
Keep ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:23, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ажкенова Дарина (talk · contribs)
[edit]
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: not an own work, it can be found previously published elswhere https://www.google.fr/search?source=lnt&tbs=sbi%3AAMhZZiuXTqNshqGasHN81iuzhSwp-9cRurgmmcO5OEOuq07_1C_1n8ePQUtB2GcRBVRgrgODBjB55M_1k8p1btFull59tIaTCHa8qkC-OXze...
Il a été importé par erreur à la place d'une photo libre de droit. Je n'en suis pas le détenteur des droits. Davdub (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Copyright violation: optional URL
{{copyvio|source=http://www.sgtrains.com/train-se.html}} 132.147.76.199 18:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by NahidSultan: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
Quiero poner otra mejor que esta, con otra prespectiva Elenanextstepper (talk) 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio: Copyright violation: https://twitter.com/Britt_Raymond/status/716021999139758080
Absolutely no proof that this person is the professional photographer that took Raymond's official headshot. Nick Moreau (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF (Wikipedia Zero upload). Gunnex (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Nominating also:
- File:Плечом к плечу (мал).png
- File:Нормандия начало (мал).png
- File:Нормандия май 2015.png
- File:Нормандия Губкин logo.png
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gunnex (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Delete all per nom. I also tagged the logo as copyvio, since it is above the TOO. --★ Poké95 01:45, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 01:52, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
from facebook Touzrimounir (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Hedwig in Washington: Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ouled Ahmed.jpg
fake - photomontage Majo statt Senf (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/6._April_2016#Harold von Brunne (geloescht). --Martin H. (talk) 14:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Admin of wikipedia this is picture shows picture of hazrat bilal who is a sahabi of Prophet Mohammad (SAW) so this picture will cause a voilance in the muslim community so it is requested to kindly remove this picture thank you 39.32.251.146 09:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Commons is not censored. --Laber□T 14:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Steinsplitter (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: PD-Art. --Yann (talk) 11:31, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
from http://twowaystreet.herokuapp.com/things/RRI1472 Diannaa (talk) 20:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by NahidSultan: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing
File not correct image. No longer needed. By Original Uploader. Lambreakingfree (talk) 23:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I see a lack of educational usability here. The picture is noisy, the main subject, the plane, unsharp. This blur prevents an identification of the flyer, not even the logo on the tail fin is discernible. Landings, landing lights, winglets and contrails all have better pictures here. In sum, this image is out of scope on quality grounds. Grand-Duc (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: No description, no location, not useful. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
License is definitely wrong, and it's just a duplicate of File:BluetoothLogo.svg IagoQnsi (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
which license does it need? it is the new sig logo they introed last month Ssofrigid (talk) 05:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Identical to the existing SVG which has been here since 2011. The SIG logo may have the words "Special Interest Group" below this, but it's not here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Delete under WP:DM. Use of copyrighted clear logo image, prominent and central to the image which matches image caption, probably reason for taking the photo : makes it difficult to argue de-minimis. Additionally, that file is in use to illustrate article X, file is categorised for subject X, X is referenced in the filename, author is WMF staffer all make it difficult for de minimis. 182.64.28.154 03:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Can't see that this file is in use anywhere in Wikimedia, so adding COM:SCOPE as grounds for deletion. Unfitlouie (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: For copyvio -- I think it is definitely in scope, though. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by IagoQnsi as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Copyrighted logo, almost certainly not owned by the uploader Bellow the TOO in the US? Amitie 10g (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @IagoQnsi: & @Amitie 10g: , I'm almost certain I went about uploading this new logo in the incorrect manner if you have both flagged it. I'm sorry for my ignorance! I have a COI with Tyson Foods, but was going to reach out to the community to update the Tyson Foods logo with this updated image (definitely let me know if that process is incorrect too). It is a company logo free for use on Wikipedia, http://www.tysonfoods.com/Media/Logo-Guidelines.aspx, but I clearly did not label or tag the image correctly. Do I need to add a Non-free use rationale for the logo to make it more acceptable? Also understand you two are likely busy, so am happy to visit the Commons Help Desk if that's the better route. Again, I do apologize for creating an issue here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgoodman85 (talk • contribs)
- The reason why I'm opened this DR is the logo seems too simple to meet the Threshold of originality for me, but I want comments from others users. If this file is copyvio or not, it should be determined by the US Copyright Law (specially the Threshold of originality), not anything else. So Keep. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply! I'm happy to help provide whatever information I can or tweak the tags and/or copyright information to ensure I'm following all procedures properly. Rgoodman85 (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- The reason why I'm opened this DR is the logo seems too simple to meet the Threshold of originality for me, but I want comments from others users. If this file is copyvio or not, it should be determined by the US Copyright Law (specially the Threshold of originality), not anything else. So
- Delete Irrespective of copyright + TOO, the terms of Tyson's Logo Guidelines are unacceptable as is any NFU rationale. Let uploader /user resolve this through OTRS from an authenticated Tyson's email /address. Unfitlouie (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No, the the terms of Tyson's Logo Guidelines are just Trademark restrictions, and Trademark does not matter, only Copyright does. If the logo is actually bellow the TOO according to the US Copyright Law, no reason for deletion. --Amitie 10g (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- No The Tyson Logo Guidelines control branding. The uploader had misinterpreted Tyson's terms of use and uploaded this logo under bonafide mistake that this image use can be restricted only for Wikipedia or under a NFU rationale. There is no way to keep this image on Commons under those terms. Additionally this is above the US TOO, since it has a complex (not simple) scalloped border (see Best Western) and hand placed 3D text effects and shading sufficiently creative to be copyrightable. Unfitlouie (talk) 08:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the Tyson's terms of use is irrelevant for copyright concerns; Only the US Copyright Law should be considered (since you mentioned the logo us above the TOO, thgis is plausible, so, we need more comments,. since the logo is too simple for me). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hi @Unfitlouie: , thank you for weighing in on the logo upload. I'm happy to try and provide whatever additional information is needed to remove any doubt around the logo. Definitely still trying to get my head around all the image restrictions and upload needs. Just to ensure I'm following properly, you're recommending that I have someone with a Tyson Foods email/IP address submit an email, using the Commons email template, through OTRS that grants permission for the logo's use on Wikipedia? Thank you for the guidance! Rgoodman85 (talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the Tyson's terms of use is irrelevant for copyright concerns; Only the US Copyright Law should be considered (since you mentioned the logo us above the TOO, thgis is plausible, so, we need more comments,. since the logo is too simple for me). --Amitie 10g (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @RGoodman85. Hi, read the following very carefully. I see that you have a declared COI because you are with a PR firm having Tyson as client. I see that you had uploaded (in fun, since you have a COI) a better version of the Tyson logo for use in Tyson's article in the English language Wikipedia, under the (mistaken) notion that this image's use would be confined to Wikipedia under a 'non-free use' rationale. Unfortunately, you (as a Wikipedia novice) uploaded the image to Wikimedia COMMONS which is a different website and where your good intentions cannot be complied with, because over here anybody anywhere in the world can use this image. You ought to have uploaded the image to the English language Wikipedia using their upload tool, and where non-free images limited only to EN:WP are allowed. As you had noauthority to upload this image,I strongly urge you to promptly contact the registered mark owner, ie. Tyson and inform them about this deletion discussion. Unfitlouie (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the thorough explanation and your patience, @Unfitlouie. I've followed through on the process you outlined above and am happy to delete this file from the Commons myself if that's the proper process. Please let me know if that's the best course of action. Rgoodman85 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you can, or should, delete the image yourself. The best course of action, is to state unambiguously that you inadvertently uploaded this trademarked image to Wikimedia Commons whereas it was your intention to upload to the English language Wikipedia "En:WP" under a NFU rationale limited only for usage in En:Wikipedia. Request the closing admin for a "Courtesy" delete. Unfitlouie (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfitlouie, since Rgoodman85 is not an admin, he can't delete the file. And please don't mention Trademark again, Commons cares only on Copyright (and since at least Me disagree with your opinion about the TOO, the admin who closes this DR should decide if the file is actually above or bellow the TOOaccording to the US Copyright Law). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Amitie10g. i) the image contains a 'R' within circle indicating it is a registered trademark, ii) COM:NCR is a community guideline and not a policy, iii) WMF's terms of use (s.4) specifically prohibits trademark infringement by users, iv) The uploader has repeatedly indicated he is an "ignorant user" and not the owner of the LOGO and was confining his upload for use on En:WP on NFU basis. v) This file was spotted by User:IagoQnsi as Copyrighted logo, almost certainly not owned by the uploader, vi) You changed the license from CC-by-SA-3.0 to PD-ineligible before initiating this DR. Therefore, I suggest that both of us have said enough and we should now let an admin deal with it. Cheers, I'm off. Unfitlouie (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfitlouie, since Rgoodman85 is not an admin, he can't delete the file. And please don't mention Trademark again, Commons cares only on Copyright (and since at least Me disagree with your opinion about the TOO, the admin who closes this DR should decide if the file is actually above or bellow the TOOaccording to the US Copyright Law). --Amitie 10g (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think you can, or should, delete the image yourself. The best course of action, is to state unambiguously that you inadvertently uploaded this trademarked image to Wikimedia Commons whereas it was your intention to upload to the English language Wikipedia "En:WP" under a NFU rationale limited only for usage in En:Wikipedia. Request the closing admin for a "Courtesy" delete. Unfitlouie (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for the thorough explanation and your patience, @Unfitlouie. I've followed through on the process you outlined above and am happy to delete this file from the Commons myself if that's the proper process. Please let me know if that's the best course of action. Rgoodman85 (talk) 18:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks to all for the conversation and information here, it's been super helpful. As the uploader, I did inadvertently upload this image to the Commons based on the notes shared above, rather than the English language Wikipedia "En:WP" under a NFU rationale, and would very much appreciate a courtesy Delete from an admin. Thank you! Rgoodman85 (talk) 11:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Simpler than the Best Western logo which is one of our examples of USA ToO. Since it is PD, the Tyson rules for its use are irrelevant except for use in a trademark conflicting situation and that is not a worry here. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image --ghouston (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia Commons is not your private photo gallery for uploading family photos.Out of scope. 182.64.28.154 04:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
The advertising of website http://stethoscopes.ru. ПростоУчастник (talk) 03:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Discuss for COM:DM Unfitlouie (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyvio -- DM is silly. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a page from a book published in 1934, so its copyright is not as an image but as part of a book (complete with caption). The author—an actual person, not a juridicial one—was still alive in 1988 (and possibly later than that), so the book (and the page from it) is not in the public domain given life of the author plus 50. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- BlueMoonset, what if we just cropped the image so that it only contains the photograph and none of the work included in the book? The license tag says all photographs and cinematographic works...enter the public domain 50 years after they were first published. I'm not sure how else one would publish a photograph if not in a book? Jolly Janner (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Precisely. The image itself has its own copyright, separate from the copyright for the text of the book (compare an Indonesian example: File:Titien Sumarni Film Varia Nov 1953 p18.jpg is from a magazine for which the articles are still under copyright, but the photographs are fine for upload here). That is why, if you buy an academic book or another (properly written) book with lots of images, the copyright holders are credited. A similar example would be the Chicken Soup for the Soul series: the editors hold the copyright over the anthologies (i.e. selection and ordering of material) but the comics and essays/anecdotes all have their own copyright and copyright holders.
- The text here is a different story. I'll crop the image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Jolly Janner: Another possibility would be promotional photographs issued as stand-alone images or posters, like File:Nurnaningsih postcard from Hollywood (1955; obverse).jpg or File:Anna May Wong - portrait.jpg. But those are relatively less common than images first published in books, newspapers, or magazines. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep the current file; Delete the old revision. Jolly Janner (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep the current file; Delete the old revision, per above. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Both versions. The substance of nom's grounds are that the book image is not a photograph and is thus entitled to authors life + 50 years. It is trite that photographic negatives, positives and prints are all by light focused onto light-sensitive material and then made visible and permanent by chemical treatment. The 1934 book's image alas was not made this way. Additionally, the book image on the website is distorted (bending) and this is not a perfect and accurate reproduction of any 2D PD artwork. Unfitlouie (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- The book's work (while cropped) is nothing more than a derivative of the original photograph, therefore they cannot hold copyright. Faithful reproductions of 2D photographs are allowed on Commons. Why would a reproduction of a 2D artwork need to perfect? Only 3D works are not allowed. Jolly Janner (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Can you prove publication of the original photograph ? No, you cannot since the work itself, or a photographic perfect copy, has to be published. If it is any other work that is published (like a book) then copyright is for life + 50 years as nom argues. Your point about "faithful" reproduction versus "perfect" reproduction is unclear. FYI, the WMF maintains that only "faithful" reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain. If it is not a faithful reproduction of the PD work (which this image certainly is not and considering you cannot show the original or a perfect copy) then it is not in PD. Unfitlouie (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Nonsense. The fact that the author of the book died recently is absolutely irrelevant. If that were so, then you could extend the life of valuable photographs by publishing them in new books every seventy years. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Image is obviously a close derivative of this photo. No evidence that the orignal photo is under a free license. -- Túrelio (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Sealle: Copyright violation; abusing multiple accounts - Using VisualFileChange.
Out of Scope Articseahorse (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
File:Funny-graveyard-shift-hash-slinging-slasher-lol-spongebob-spongebob-squarepants-63282.jpg
[edit]
out of scope Articseahorse (talk) 05:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: not used, not educational selfie/snap.
- File:Victor Delaval C4 FFE.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval (3).jpg
- File:Victor Delaval (2).jpg
- File:Victor Delaval (1).jpg
- File:Victor Delaval.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
KurodaSho (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: Alan (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Personal images, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 06:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused private vanity photos of non-notable individual. Outside project scope.
- File:Victor Delaval 8.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 9.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 7.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 4.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 3.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 5.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 6.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 2.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval.jpg
- File:Victor Delaval 1.jpg
DAJF (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:14, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope (commons don't host selfies). Sismarinho (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Personal images, out of scope
- File:12142019 1208148012533773 2120135831 n 2.jpg
- File:12208303 821275877981081 6808683239854310856 n.jpg.jpg
- File:12243500 1702237363325829 3090969140886018889 nl.jpg
- File:12356394 16336154302vcv36692 2016337267 n.jpg
- File:12494937 976094702484580 354378290570534950 n(1).jpg
- File:12800103 1725679330977807 1566266286247180064 n - copia.jpg
- File:12801383 1548386358792861 2800910107982798622 n. (downloaded with 1stBrowser).jpg
- File:1391081616 standard.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gbawden (talk) 07:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Selection of files in Category:All media needing categories as of 2016
[edit]In the opinion of this user, the following unused media do not possess realistic educational value or purpose and are thus outside project scope.
- File:"Somos Una".jpg
- File:,thrv.jpg
- File:-Dahvie Vanity.png
- File:-emotional engagement-.jpg
- File:-Акела.png
- File:0001sivaraman (6).jpg
- File:090 akjs.jpg
- File:0hhhh Me With My Bestie Christmas Night In Chruch.jpg
- File:13 Atok Street Banawer Quezon City 1.jpg
- File:13 Atok Street Banawer Quezon City 2.jpg
- File:1312971903 babkiny-yayca-7.-sosedskie-.0-00-27.000.jpg
- File:14125705 Image=divix.jpg
- File:15 - Lucas Bortoletto.jpg
- File:157274003 copie.png
- File:15742 100273600000289 100000529474907 5377 2273347 n.jpg
- File:159241 1y9ytnigf4 1265474.jpg
- File:15th August .jpg
- File:16 Três Campeões de 1978.jpg
- File:1755 1080224005546 2499 n.jpg
- File:19071 462814605690 616065690 11233314 378969 nJPEG.jpg
- File:1918944 592173654274478 7691105000927129670 Սյուզի.jpg
- File:1cf013b97c65b23 w600 h450.jpg
- File:1D4A7952.jpg
- File:1dee861.jpg
- File:1K7g b4pIJA.jpg
- File:1oOqQB8JiOA.jpg
- File:1Pcprincipal.png
- File:1sd.jpg
- File:1st october.jpg
- File:1w65M0.gif
- File:1zo.jpg
- File:2-on-1 Pickup Game .jpg
- File:20.jpg.jpg
- File:2010-01-01 070246 picbeauty.jpg
- File:2012 bp.jpg
- File:20120831 020718000 iOS.png
- File:2013-08-22T11-39-41 12.jpg
- File:2013-08-22T11-39-41 19.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Voltteri (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted most uploads of Tigerson1995 (talk · contribs) as copyright violations, because they were found in Internet. I did not find this, but probably this is copyvio as well. Small photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk page whose only content is out-of-scope for Commons (some political comment instead of file maintenance discussion). Closeapple (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
copyrighted Burmese flim poster "I'm Rose, Darling". source: [1] Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 07:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Jcb. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, personal creation, with no explicit description Pippobuono (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, personal photos, with no description, nor celebrity Pippobuono (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, screenshot of a blog Pippobuono (talk) 10:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, selfie Pippobuono (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, selfie Pippobuono (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Small unused selfie without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Quality is quite bad. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
screenshot of a commercial site Pippobuono (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 10:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Derivative work (non-free logo). Also is a personal creation out of scope. XXN, 11:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Images of poor quality. Unused and probably unusable (especially the first). Also, their content may be copyrighted, non-free.
XXN, 11:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Spam (w:Special:Undelete/User talk:Hmhairspa). MER-C 11:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Screenshot of web page with non-free content. No permission. Also, out of scope. XXN, 11:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
If it's an own work of the uploader, it's out of scope, since we don't host uploader-created logos. If it's not, it's a copyright infringement, since this is way past the minimum for copyright protection. Nyttend (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ISMAEL NAH (talk · contribs)
[edit]One non-free logo and one out of scope image (or even both).
XXN, 13:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by จิรายุส สอนมีทอง (talk · contribs)
[edit]Video game screenshots - No permission.
XXN, 13:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Somnath barbade (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:50, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisement. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:51, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anna Obukhovskaya (talk · contribs)
[edit]Look like advertisement. Could be found on http://solopharm.com/images/main/7.jpg.
- File:Solopharm. Water Preparation.jpg
- File:Solopharm.Clean rooms.jpg
- File:Solopharm. Production.jpg
- File:Solopharm.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Parto afrouz derakhshan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Self-promotional, out of scope and perhaps non-free at least the logo.
XXN, 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:54, 14 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) 14:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 11:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
advertisement; probably out of project scope Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mvanderseijs (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Done by Taivo. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:03, 14 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) 14:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. FDMS 4 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope. Storkk (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Metadata credits "OG Photography", who should confirm license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo: out of scope. Storkk (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-notable logo/artwork. Out of scope. Storkk (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Plain commercial advertising, SPAM, out of project scope.
- File:Welcome Spring Creaflor Brussels.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 8.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 7.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 5.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 6.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 4.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 2.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 3.jpg
- File:Easter at CreaflorBrussels 1.jpg
Ies (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Enageshwari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook screenshots (with non-free content).No permission. Also, out of project scope.
- File:Sub welcome.png
- File:Sub text2.png
- File:Sub text1.png
- File:Sub success.png
- File:Sub sendmsg.png
- File:Sub res.png
- File:Sub postmsg.png
- File:Sub post.png
- File:Sub click.png
- File:Sub chat1.png
XXN, 16:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logo and screenshot. Also out of scope and perhaps were uploaded for advertising.
XXN, 17:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Information for allllllll (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. Ies (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content, see thumbnail format and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 17:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of [[COM:SCOPE], personal photo of non-notable persons. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Jeet221990/logs (copyvio-only account) and (pending) Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mumbai skyline88907.jpg. Last remaining file. Gunnex (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of [[COM:SCOPE], personal photo of non-notable persons. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of [[COM:SCOPE], personal photo of non-notable person. -- Túrelio (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of [[COM:SCOPE], personal photo of non-notable person.-- Túrelio (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, personal photo of non-notable person.-- Túrelio (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 20:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of encyclopedically non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of encyclopedically non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of encyclopedically non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of encyclopedically non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE, unused personal photo of encyclopedically non-notable person. Note: Commons is not Facebook or alike. -- Túrelio (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 12:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Le propriétaire du château a contacté OTRS (voir ticket:2016040410008153) pour demander la suppression de la photo. Le propriétaire affirme que la photographe a pénétré dans sa propriété privée pour prendre la photo.
The owner of the castle contacted OTRS (see ticket:2016040410008153) to ask to delete this image. The owner affirm that the photographer trespassed his private property. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment Comment pourrait on voir la clôture de la propriété, si j'étais rentré sur sont terrain ? J'ai fais la photo depuis le chemin qui longe la clôture. En 10 ans de Wikipédia, je n'ai jamais fais de violation de domicile ! --Marianne Casamance (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)- Comment How could we see the closing of the property, if I were back on land are? I made the photo from the path along the fence. In 10 years of Wikipedia, I never make a home invasion! --Marianne Casamance (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Marianne Casamance (talk) 13:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I trust the photographer if she says that it was taken from the street. No legal issue for Commons anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep then. Ces accusations sont donc infondées. --Thibaut120094 (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep No proof that it is really a restricted area. Also image is used, so courtesy deletion should be declined until a replacement image is found. Ankry (talk) 05:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The charges are not proven, in more we can see the street.--Gratus (talk) 09:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
superseded by File:Moracizine.png und File:Moricizin.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 18:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
fully replaced by File:Calcein.svg Kopiersperre (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ed (Edgar181) 17:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
NC only MB-one (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb: Missing permission as of 6 April 2016 - Using VisualFileChange.
named it incorrectly Allthegoodthings707 (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion; next time use
|
Please remove this template. {{Rename}} should only be used for files. Use {{Edit request}} or {{Move}} if you can't move this page yourself using the move-tab. |
my own upload, and it's a copy of something I already uploaded (apologies) Daderot (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
my own upload, and it's a copy of something I already uploaded (apologies) Daderot (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Low quality (awfull pixelisation and jpef artifacts), there are better photos from this location C messier (talk) 08:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Unneeded image macro meme; blatantly out of scope IagoQnsi (talk) 01:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Not relastically useful for an educational purpose. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I highly doubt this is Creative Commons. The phone is very detailed, just as from the Apple website. If you agree, you can transform this into a copyvio (fast deletion). TheMostAmazingTechnik (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I already did before I saw your nomination. This is a derivative work, the details are exactly the same with Apple’s source material.–Totie (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Jcb. Riley Huntley (talk) 05:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sas-lebedev (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots of web-pages. No permission.
XXN, 11:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: by Ellin Beltz. Riley Huntley (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted files (as indicated on the files) or files with logo without permission.
- File:Leandro muñoz.jpg
- File:Titin aguilar en la vuelta del 2000.jpg
- File:Los expertos de la vuelta.jpg
- File:Raul en la zona "rio valdez".jpg
- File:Raul gonzalez en el sector del "rio ewan sur".jpg
- File:Tomas zentner el cuatro veces campeon de cross y ganador de la vuelta en el 2012.jpg
- File:Fernando lorenzoni.jpg
- File:Los 5 mejores de la vuelta a la tierra del fuego, diego jerez, guet, raul gonzalez, federico velazquez, y fernando lorenzoni.jpg
- File:Diego jerez, gaston martinez y fernando lorenzoni.jpg
- File:Raul gonzalez en la zona del cuerno.jpg
- File:El lugar mas extraordinario "valdez".jpg
- File:Fernando lorenzoni, el campeon de la vuelta a la tierra del fuego 2012.jpg
- File:Diejo jerez el 9ve veces ganador de la vuelta a la tierra del fuego.jpg
- File:La mejor grilla de la historia.jpg
- File:Raul gonzalez el 7 veces ganador de la vuelta a la tierra del fuego.jpg
- File:Jose fregosini.jpg
Cjp24 (talk) 13:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Clear copyright violations: multiple photographers. Each photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 10:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
After all of the user's previous uploads (which had varying authors and were all watermarked) were nominated for deletion, these were uploaded... almost certainly by different photographers again, and this time with any watermark cropped out. To keep these, the original photographers must convince COM:OTRS first that they are the actual photographers, and second that they are licensing the photos freely.
- File:Daniel cardenas al maximo.jpg
- File:Daniel cartedas primero.jpg
- File:Esteban poroto bronzovich el mas ganador en la categoria ATV PRO "A".jpg
- File:Daniel el terrible cardenas, ganador de la vuelta 2014.jpg
- File:Leandro muñoz uno de los mejores de atv pro "A".jpg
- File:En el costado derecho titin aguilar.jpg
- File:Titin aguilar el competidor pionero de la vuelta. con 31 vueltas corridas.jpg
- File:Tomas zentner en la vuelta 2014.jpg
- File:Oscar aap en su 4 vuelta a la tierra del fuego.jpg
- File:Raul gonzalez adelante de nahuel benitez y diego jerez.jpg
- File:Diego jerez en el "rio ewan".jpg
- File:Diego jerez ganando la challenger con victor gallegos el corredor del dakar 2014.jpg
- File:Raul gonzalez el segundo mas ganador de la vuelta.jpg
- File:Diego jerez el mas ganador.jpg
- File:Jose fregosini en la zona del cuerno.jpg
- File:La unica vez que se iso una sola grilla en la vuelta.jpg
- File:La vuelta a la tierra del 1999.jpg
- File:Oscar en su ultima vuelta a la tierra del fuego (6), quedando en la categoria expertos en 9no lugar.jpg
- File:Diego jerez, raul aralde, y raul gonzalez.jpg
- File:Oscar aap en el año 1984, ganandola en pleno debut en su categoria.jpg
- File:Diego jerez el numero 1no, jose fregosini el 2os, facuando onyszczuk el 3es.jpg
,_quedando_en_la_categoria_expertos_en_9no_lugar.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Storkk (talk) 10:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danahlaine (talk · contribs)
[edit]- not an own work, image itself has a watermark of original creator.
- File:I am Rose, Dear.jpg is a copyrighted Burmese film poster.
- File:Yoon Yoon.jpg
- File:ယြန္းယြန္း.jpg
- File:I am Rose, Dear.jpg
- File:2014 the best actress academy awarded wutt hmone shwe yi.jpg
Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 05:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danahlaine (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small size, no EXIF
- File:Phway15.png
- File:Myanmar academy.png
- File:Best female supportive actress award.png
- File:Wutt Hmone.png
- File:Phway Phway.png
/St1995 17:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation, the uploader is not the creator as claimed Dodger67 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
_Jennifer_Spry_2010_www.birdlife.org.au.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Jennifer_Spry_2010_www.birdlife.org.au.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyright violation, the uploader is not the creator as claimed Dodger67 (talk) 05:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Jennifer_Spry_2010_www.birdlife.org.au.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
_Jennifer_Spry_2010_www.birdlife.org.au.jpg){kind=link}
Copyvio, no own work Tekstman (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyvio, no own work Tekstman (talk) 05:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Not own work. That it is not copyrighted might be true when the work was anonymous, but then a source must be provided for this to be checked. Tekstman (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arkangel414 (talk · contribs)
[edit]User claims that these are all own work but there is no exif info. Probably a copyvio. User has not uploaded any other photos since uploading these
- File:Gloria Polo.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo antes del rayo 1.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo antes del rayo.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 20.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 21.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 19.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 18.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 17.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 16.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 15.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 14.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 13.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 12.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 11.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 10.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 9.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 8.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 7.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 6.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 5.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 4.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 3.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 2.jpg
- File:Gloria Polo 1.jpg
- File:Lfo 6.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 07:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arkangel414 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Last remaining files, small images without EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Angela Hernandez.jpg
- File:Angela Hernandez 4.jpg
- File:Angela Hernandez 3.jpg
- File:Angela Hernandez 2.jpg
- File:Lfo 14.jpg
- File:Lfo 10.jpg
- File:Lfo 8.jpg
- File:Lfo 7.jpg
- File:Lfo 4.jpg
- File:Lfo 2.jpg
- File:Luis Ferndo ochoa.jpg
Yann (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
identical to [File:Göscherneralp 1966 10.JPG] Anidaat (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment the rocks on the right hand side seem somehow smudged in File:Göscherneralp 1966 10.JPG, and better in this file. Storkk (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: not in use, almost identical - the other one is not in use either. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photographs of identifiable people 최광모 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Unused file, seems promotional, out of project scope Jianhui67 talk★contribs 07:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Morelix as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Löschen damit man auf ein Bild beschränken kann.. Uploader's request 3 years after uploading, depicted person de:Heinrich von Wagner is notable. The photo is in public domain in USA as pre-1923 photo, but copyright status in Germany is unknown, because author and his death year are unknown. Taivo (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Non-free paintings. No permission.
- File:Zana florilor.JPG
- File:Muza cu fluturi.JPG
- File:Petrecere campeneasca.JPG
- File:Pianista.JPG
- File:Violonista.JPG
- File:Cantareata.JPG
- File:La o cafea.JPG
- File:La o barfa.JPG
- File:Doamna cu pisica roz.JPG
- File:Doamna.JPG
- File:Fata cu pisica.JPG
- File:Jocul.JPG
- File:Fata cu palarie.JPG
- File:Fetele.JPG
- File:Scripcarul.JPG
- File:Promenade danglois.JPG
- File:Biliard.JPG
- File:Frumoasa.JPG
- File:Timp.JPG
- File:Petrecere.JPG
XXN, 12:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. Besides, the image is rather unfocussed. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. However, it might be below TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No copyrightable stuff on it. Public domain texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.63.112 (talk • contribs)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted presentation-slide has been taken at a fair and thereby (non-permanent display and likely inside a building) does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted poster due to non-permanent display does not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. However, it is likely below TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: below TOO. --Krd 10:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The photo of the depicted sheets of paper due to non-permanent display do not qualify for freedom-of-panorama exception of Germany. However, they may be below TOO. -- Túrelio (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Uploaded into Youtube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAhweQgMj_w from October 2012. OTRS-permission from copyright holder is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete No evidence of permission. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Reason for the nomination: due to copyright violation: pdf, page 43 - [2] Doc Taxon (talk)
- that's done:
{{PermissionOTRS|2016032710004375}}
Kept: per OTRS permission. --Krd 10:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. It is not simple geometric shapes or text, does not meet the threshold of originality. Warko (talk) 00:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete: The text itself is bellow the TOO, but the effects on them, and the background make it above. --Amitie 10g (talk) 00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
The speedy deletion label of the user Warko is incorrect, because the original author is MTV the source file is the same uploaded, the logo not is original because is formed by the geometric shape of the rectangle within this a typeface with the program name, therefore it does not reach the required threshold of originality. Regards!. Kovox90
- La etiqueta de borrado fue removida, no cumple con las normas de borrado especificadas en la política oficial de Wikimedia Commons.
- No, see my above comment. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - new version is also above TOO. --Jcb (talk) 16:34, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Naked photo of uploader; blatantly out of scope and unneeded IagoQnsi (talk) 01:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep We have too many diseased penis images, but not enough such healthy butts. Unfitlouie (talk) 19:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Redundant, low resolution, badly lit, unremarkable. This is not a useful image of male buttocks, of a swimming pool, or of a pool slide. Commons is not a private image repository. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
No details about original source and its copyright status. --ghouston (talk) 03:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Raster version of File:SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment logo.svg Elisfkc (talk) 04:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Failure to comply with clause 4.c of licence. 182.64.28.154 04:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom Unfitlouie (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Own work doubtful, we need to know the proper source to determine the copyright statut
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Looks like an official city planning document. Definitely not an own work. Unless there's an indication that this was released under some sort of free license by the city planning authority or mapmaker, this doesn't belong on Commons. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Above TOO in France, same comment as in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Trace Urban - Logo.png=
- It is not below TOO in France [3], TOO is very low in France since there is a visible will of the artist. As exemple the text above this door is protected by french law. And here we have clearly an attempt of design from the artist/desiner = above TOO in France. Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --Jcb (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This file has no official verification or authorization from the original photographer for license of the photo. How did a common photographer get a close shot? This photo seems to be either downloaded or copied from other website or a blog. The author who posted the photo should release the license of this photo or this should be deleted as per Wikipedia Rules and Regulations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob 182.69.72.128 08:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This file has no official verification or authorization from the original photographer for license of the photo. How did a common photographer get a close shot? This photo seems to be either downloaded or copied from other website or a blog. The author who posted the photo should release the license of this photo or this should be deleted as per Wikipedia Rules and Regulations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob 182.69.72.128 08:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
This file has no official verification or authorization from the original photographer for license of the photo. How did a common photographer get a close shot? This photo seems to be either downloaded or copied from other website or a blog. The author who posted the photo should release the license of this photo or this should be deleted as per Wikipedia Rules and Regulations. Thanks, Varghese Jacob 182.69.72.128 08:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Isaac agredano 1
[edit]Copyright violation, highly unlikely to be "own work": wide variety of sizes and quality, and already readily available on the internet.
- File:Minatitlan Veracruz.jpg
- File:Minatilan Veracruz.jpg
- File:Puente de Tampico Tamualipas.jpg
- File:Ciudad-victoria Tamaulipas.jpg
- File:Nuevo Laredo.jpg
- File:Zacatecas city.jpg
- File:Andorra la Vieja.jpg
- File:Ciudad de Vaduz.jpg
- File:Tel-Aviv- Yafo.jpg
- File:Terminal del Aeropuerto de Palenque.jpg
- File:Torre de Control del Aeropuerto.jpg
- File:Lobamba.jpg
- File:Control Tower Yuma International Airport.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de zacatecas.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de ciudad juarez.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto internacional venustiano carranza.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto nacional de lazaro cardenas.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto internacional de uruapan.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto internacional de nuevo laredo.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto internacional de cozumel.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto internacional de mar de cortes.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto el tajin.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto nacional el tajin.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto el lencero.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto nacioanl de tehuacan.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de tamuin.png
- File:Aeropuerto de Nogales.jpg
- File:Terminal del aeropuerto de matamoros.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de guaymas.jpg
P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I uploaded this thinking it could be licensed, but I was wrong and it needs to be deleted. Miyagawa (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Info It is Getty Images ID #3403288. Josve05a (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: H.F. Davis appears to still have been working in 1943, and it is not clear he died before 1945. It would be nice to know his deathyear, but for the moment we have to delete. --Storkk (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- I see no proof that the uploader is the author. Image is also on other sites, sometimes cropped, like https://naccnaca-eventimages.s3.amazonaws.com/12828/abel_maxwell_nac-new_image_web__large.jpg Wikijunkie (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, photographer must confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Casotexaco (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work by uploader, those files are taken in various places. It is impossible that s/he was there in a single day. It seems to be spam either.
- File:Antichevron10.jpg
- File:Antichevron9.jpg
- File:Antichevron8.jpg
- File:Antichevron7.jpg
- File:Antichevron6.jpg
- File:Antichevron5.jpg
- File:Antichevron4.jpg
- File:Antichevron3.jpg
- File:Antichevron2.jpg
- File:Antichevron1.jpg
★ Poké95 11:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I asked Pokefan95 to create this DR. Each image appears to be fine by itself, but they're all supposedly taken by the uploader on 5 April 2016 in places as far apart as Argentina, Nigeria, and the UK; that's what Pokefan means by "it is impossible..." Surely they're not own works; in fact, two have already been speedied as copyvios. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. Evident copyvios already speedy deleted. Ankry (talk) 13:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per above. Not possible that this uploader took all these images. Therefore, own work is not possible. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, photographer should all confirm licenses via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
personne sur la photo s'oppose à y être: droit à l'image non demandée! 80.15.207.9 11:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bonjour. Je n'ai pas compris pourquoi ce message était doublé. Quant à la photo, pas de problème, j'ai flouté la personne qui, au demeurant, était déjà méconnaissable, je lui ai même enlevé son écharpe. Bien cordialement. AntonyB (talk) 08:12, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: resolved. --Storkk (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
COM:DW Josve05a (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- also file:TopON office.JPG
TopON is not mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in ru.wiki. The company is non-notable. In addition, they are small photos without metadata, own work is in doubt, maybe copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Benjamin Mestrallet (talk · contribs)
[edit]Screenshots of web pages with non-free content. No permission. Also, out of project scope.
- File:WikiSpace2.jpg
- File:ForumTopic.jpg
- File:IDEHome.png
- File:DocumentHome.jpg
- File:DashboardHome.jpg
- File:CalendarHome.jpg
- File:ForumHome.jpg
- File:SpaceHome.jpg
- File:WikiSpace.jpg
- File:EXo Platform 4 Social Intranet HomePage.jpg
XXN, 11:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Violation of copyright Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Olsson-2016-04-06T11:53:00.000Z-File:Stockholm._Målning_på_ett_sedermera_rivet_skjul_i_Vasaparken.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Violation of copyright Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Olsson-2016-04-06T11:54:00.000Z-File:Stockholm,_vid_Smedsuddsbadet.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Violation of copyright Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Olsson-2016-04-06T11:54:00.000Z-File:Stockholm._Gärdets_grill_(1).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Violation of copyright Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk) 11:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Olsson-2016-04-06T11:54:00.000Z-File:Stockholm._Gärdets_grill_(2).JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Violation of copyright Lars (Lon) Olsson (talk) 11:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Olsson-2016-04-06T11:58:00.000Z-File:Minnen_från_Mariefred.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Vaterrecht (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-free content from http://www.vater-recht.at.
XXN, 11:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. Fæ (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of France, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, be assured, France has copyright law. French law has the concept of exceptions for utilitarian objects, but stuffed toys are not utilitarian where design is constrained by function. Consequently droit d'auteur applies in the normal way for these creations. --Fæ (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't believe I'm reading this right. @Ktr101: Are you trying to claim that is not a copyright violation, merly because we haven't listed this specific thing on one of our guideline pages? You do know they are just summaries of our interpretations of the laws in different countries, and we link to these guidelines merly to give a large picture/broad strokes of why it needs to be deleted. I'd trust Fæ regarding the fact that France also has copyright laws. I'd believe we would list countries which did not have such laws on some guidleine page by it self. Josve05a (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Not at all actually, but I found it more of a stretch since I would like to see the actual law this is citing if we are going to be going that route. Still, the latter half of my argument still stands, especially since the link below was closed as keep. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:46, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I can't believe I'm reading this right. @Ktr101: Are you trying to claim that is not a copyright violation, merly because we haven't listed this specific thing on one of our guideline pages? You do know they are just summaries of our interpretations of the laws in different countries, and we link to these guidelines merly to give a large picture/broad strokes of why it needs to be deleted. I'd trust Fæ regarding the fact that France also has copyright laws. I'd believe we would list countries which did not have such laws on some guidleine page by it self. Josve05a (talk) 15:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, be assured, France has copyright law. French law has the concept of exceptions for utilitarian objects, but stuffed toys are not utilitarian where design is constrained by function. Consequently droit d'auteur applies in the normal way for these creations. --Fæ (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Struck comments above from WMF globally banned account to highlight that fact while leaving visible for anyone interested. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Multichill. Vague suspicion that this might be a copyright violation under certain circumstances is not evidence that it is a copyright violation. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Fæ. --★ Poké95 02:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Question User:Fæ, you wrote that French law has the concept of exceptions for utilitarian objects but what are you basing this statement on? Based on [4], French law does not permit photos of furniture because it violates the copyright to the furniture. I don't see why plushies would be any different to furniture. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know about France specifically, but other countries may have copyright over "works of artistic craftsmanship" which can include hand-made furniture. Presumably the copyright holder then has the right to mass-produce their design and still have it under copyright. I can't imagine it's easy to determine whether a particular item is artistic or not. --ghouston (talk)
- @Stefan2: There's a reasonable summary here. The recent keeps of plushie photographs appear to ignore fundamental copyright concepts and cases, for example there is absolutely no way that a plushie can be a utilitarian object, far less chance of than for a chair, and as shown there's plenty of copyright protection for chairs of all types. --Fæ (talk) 12:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a designer toy but a simple toy that is considered an utilitarian object — NickK (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, utilitarian objects are copyrighted in France, see [5]. Also, it doesn't matter who the author of a toy is. For example, paintings made by small children are copyrighted, although such paintings tend not to be very good. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- That particular chair in the French court decision was designed by Le Corbusier who is a known designer and who clearly made original chairs, perhaps more for artistic purpose than for an utilitarian one. Moreover, these tools most likely has China as a country of origin and not France — NickK (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, utilitarian objects are copyrighted in France, see [5]. Also, it doesn't matter who the author of a toy is. For example, paintings made by small children are copyrighted, although such paintings tend not to be very good. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:43, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are odd parts of the above comment worth highlighting. China has perfectly good copyright law, very similar to protection granted in Europe, to protect the work of its designers and artists. Chairs or plushies are no exception, and under the COM:PRP the starting point for deciding whether copyright applies in any country in a similar way to the USA or Europe, would be to presume it does unless you can point to where in local copyright law there are exceptions or existing cases to take a precedent from. Yes, Corbusier is a "name", however copyright is not applied on Commons based on whether an artist or designer is famous or not, or indeed whether volunteers here can work out the specific IP protections or not. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that Le Corbusier chair is copyrighted does not mean that any chair is copyrighted. In a similar way, the fact that some Disney toys are copyrighted does not mean that any toys are copyrighted. COM:PRP cannot be used as a reason to delete the entire Category:Chairs, as most photos in this category depict utilitarian objects and fall under COM:UA. Same applies for toys that are also utilitarian objects — NickK (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are odd parts of the above comment worth highlighting. China has perfectly good copyright law, very similar to protection granted in Europe, to protect the work of its designers and artists. Chairs or plushies are no exception, and under the COM:PRP the starting point for deciding whether copyright applies in any country in a similar way to the USA or Europe, would be to presume it does unless you can point to where in local copyright law there are exceptions or existing cases to take a precedent from. Yes, Corbusier is a "name", however copyright is not applied on Commons based on whether an artist or designer is famous or not, or indeed whether volunteers here can work out the specific IP protections or not. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: as per above discussion (NickK, etc.). --Yann (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Deleted: as per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Percy Plush. Yann (talk) 11:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Andrus Kallastu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused documents of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:VISANDPARTITUUR B001.pdf
- File:VISANDPARTITUUR A.pdf
- File:MUUSIKALISTE OBJEKTIDE LOEND B001.pdf
- File:MUUSIKALISTE OBJEKTIDE LOEND A.pdf
- File:LIITKONTRAPUNKT B001 range stiil, kahehäälsus, vertikaalne.pdf
- File:LIITKONTRAPUNKT A.pdf
- File:KAANON B005 range stiil 3-häälne vahetaktide arv 8.pdf
- File:KAANON B004 range stiil 3-häälne vahetaktide arv 6.pdf
- File:KAANON B003 range stiil 3-häälne vahetaktide arv 4.pdf
- File:KAANON B002 range stiil 3-häälne vahetaktide arv 2.pdf
- File:KAANON A.pdf
- File:IMITATSIOON B003 range stiili alusel vaba imitatsioon Kyrie eleison.pdf
- File:KAANON B001 range stiil 3-häälne vahetaktide arv 0.pdf
- File:IMITATSIOON B002 range stiil Kyrie eleison.pdf
- File:IMITATSIOON B001 range stiil Kyrie eleison.pdf
- File:IMITATSIOON A.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate ballot measure maps of Oregon
[edit]- File:Oregon 2006 Measures 46 and 48.svg
- File:Oregon 2008 Measures 51 and 52.svg
- File:Oregon 2008 Measure 51.svg
- File:Oregon 2010 Measure 70.svg
- File:Oregon 2010 Measure 71.svg
- File:Oregon 2010 Measure 76.svg
- File:Oregon 2008 Measure 65.svg
- File:Oregon 2010 Measure 75.svg
- File:Oregon 2014 Measure 90.svg
Two sets of duplicate files that have been superseded by File:Oregon Ballot Measures No.svg and File:Oregon Ballot Measures Yes.svg. These files can be used in all circumstances when every county voted no, or when every county voted yes. --MB298 (talk) 03:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note: After deleting, please redirect in order to preserve links. MB298 (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - usage replaced. --Jcb (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
_City_3-door_hatchback_(2008-11-11).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_City_3-door_hatchback_(2008-11-11).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Self nomination of low quality file replaced by the equivalent and higher quality File:1994-1995 Holden Barina (SB) City 3-door hatchback (19124790640).jpg (and other files within Category:Holden Barina (SB)). The deletion of this image would be in accordance with COM:Redundant.
_City_3-door_hatchback_(19124790640).jpg){kind=link}
This file has been nominated because:
- It has proportion/distortion issues
- It is grainy/blurry
I note that the above-mentioned category contains numerous other higher quality files to satisfy the needs of this project and beyond. Wikimedia Commons is not a repository of junk files, but should be a compendium of quality files where possible. When we have multiple files of the same topic in a category, curating this down to only show images of better quality is appropriate and supported by COM:NOTUSED. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_City_3-door_hatchback_(2008-11-11).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
_City_3-door_hatchback_(2008-11-11).jpg){kind=link}
Source for this derivative image has not been given. There is no evidence that the original was public domain or unrestricted by copyright. Fæ (talk) 09:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Clearly, for the reason given. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Question: Is there evidence that this is not an original work from Beachnut4? Google Image Search didn't returned any results prior to the date of uploading (2007 and transferred in 2008) rather than Wikipedia and its mirrors (and Pinterest was created in 2010, so please don't mention it). But the photo lack of Exif. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- No, there's no evidence either way. We can see this was a derived image, and it seems far more likely that it was lifted from somewhere else. COM:PRP has to apply. In terms of usage, there are far better authentic photographs to illustrate corsets, so this weird creation appearing to be more of a kinky fan-pic, is no great loss. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- How do you know it's derived? --ghouston (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- As said, there's no evidence either way. It does not really matter if this was a photograph taken by the uploader, if challenged we should be able to verify the release and assess the credibility of the source. The only "source" we have here was the upload of an image to Wikipedia in 2007 that was transferred by bot to Commons in 2008. The account holder stopped using their account in 2012 and only ever used it to make 5 edits to Commons (one upload remains undeleted) and 90 edits to the English Wikipedia over several years. Considering the nature of edits to Wikipedia and the images on Commons under their name they could be considered a single purpose account. Taking a deeper look at their images that exist on Commons, we find the following gallery:
- How do you know it's derived? --ghouston (talk) 00:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Exoticball
-
detail of corset
-
Corset
-
Bellydancer
-
Body painting
- Category:Photographs by Beachnut4 now created
- Exoticball There is a date anomoly here. The small amount of EXIF data left by Photoshop includes a file timestamp of 19:27, 27 June 2007, however the file on Wikipedia was originally uploaded on 18 June 2007, 9 days earlier than its timestamp. This makes the data around it seem unreliable and leaves us to doubt all EXIF data for other uploads, as they may have been amended.
- Corset There are two upload entries on en.wp for this file. The first upload was a significantly larger file than the current version on Commons, leaving me to suspect this may have had EXIF data that was removed, leaving absolutely no EXIF or XMP data that can be detected by non-Commons tools.
- Bellydancer This file was uploaded by @Nv8200pa: , who has been active since 2003 and is a en.wp admin. The file was uploaded directly to Commons and never to en.wp. It is unclear why Nv8200pa made the self release statement on behalf of Beachnut4. The EXIF and XMP is minimal but there seems nothing contradictory about the data. The uploader is recently active on Commons, so may be able to fill in the detail of events.
- Body painting This is the only direct upload to Commons by Beachnut4. The EXIF gives a timestamp of the day before upload, 3 June 2011, and as they were active editing in this area, the date seems reasonable.
- Looking more generally at en.wp uploads, there have been 11 distinct deletions there, mostly related to transfers to Commons, but a few like en:File:Sunbathing_in_Miami.jpg and en:File:Sunbathing_on_nude_beach.jpg were deleted because of unresolved source and licensing problems.
- Returning to Commons, the deletion log only shows Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model shoot playboy.jpg, however the discussion there is of concern as the file was ultimately deleted because it had been 'faked' in some way (as I am not an admin I can't see the files under discussion) though the apparent false statements about the name of the photographer are also of serious concern as they were never addressed.
- Based on all this, I'd say there is enough doubt about the Beachnut4's images to delete on the precautionary principle if there is no further verification of the release available. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I'm not seeing anything about this image that really screams "photoshop". I see no reason why it couldn't be exactly what the uploader claims it is: an original image. --Carnildo (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- A specific answer is that 3 of the 5 images with Beachnut4 as the attributed photographer have "Adobe Photoshop" declared in the EXIF software field. The remaining 2 are the corset image where the EXIF appears deliberately blanked, and a crop of the same file with no EXIF fields. It would seem odd if this image was the only one never touched by Photoshop, but we can't prove a negative. --Fæ (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fæ: Reasons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model shoot playboy.jpg are fake and copyright violation. The user uploaded two versions of a photo. The two versions showed image editing and varying authorship claims. Genereally the user has a very strange interpretation of copyright ownership [6], therefore Delete here, the base photos are very likely not own work. --Martin H. (talk) 08:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fæ: Reasons in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Model shoot playboy.jpg are fake and copyright violation. The user uploaded two versions of a photo. The two versions showed image editing and varying authorship claims. Genereally the user has a very strange interpretation of copyright ownership [6], therefore
- Keep I am the owner of this work, and took the original photo. It is one of the few photos that show the modern practice of tightlacing, and is used in many articles. It is an authentic photo, one of many taken of this individual. To delete this would seem arbitrary and led by circumstantial arguments. --beachnut4 (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Here is a link to video of the young lady that I took. i do not have permission to show her face, so it is only from the back- http://i.imgur.com/jpyQPUV.gifv --beachnut4 (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Beachnut4: I would be a lot happier with the photograph if you could upload the original with EXIF data, or a copy of the uncropped version with EXIF data to permissions-commons
wikimedia.org. The copyright issues and other concerns for your previous uploads mean that greater effort should be put into verification of the release to reduce any remaining doubt. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Beachnut4: : "[T]he Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. This is so whether the image is of a famous personality or of an unknown individual." This image appears to have been taken at a Renaissance Faire, which is a public place/ place open to the public where those in attendance do so without expectation of privacy. By this reading, you are certainly allowed to show her face. KDS4444 (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- And as an aside, I have checked with my Ren. Faire connects, and although no one appears to know this woman personally, the costume and associated breasts are not considered a thing that hasn't been done (the breast likely being augmented, but not photoshopped). Corset wearers are a dedicated bunch, it seems. KDS4444 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Beachnut4: I would be a lot happier with the photograph if you could upload the original with EXIF data, or a copy of the uncropped version with EXIF data to permissions-commons
- Keep There is a very good reason there is no EXIF data or a face shown - the lady in question would like to remain anonymous. She gave permission to show this photo in this form, IF there is no way to trace the photo to a certain RenFaire, or to identify her by appearance. This is for the safety of the subject. Surely you can understand that.--beachnut4 (talk) 00:53, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, fantasy coats of arms Pippobuono (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
out of scope, fantasy flag Pippobuono (talk) 10:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Files in Category:Lilo & Stitch
[edit]- Character name: Stitch (Lilo & Stitch) ; Copyright Holder: Disney Enterprises Inc.
- Not free enough to share on commons, please see also:COM:DW
- This photo is hardly judged as "De minimis".
--Tokorokoko (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Lisa01031995 (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except sandbox in en.wiki and uploading an image, which is used nowhere, except in the sandbox. All her activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, claimed to be a selfie, although it isn't. I suspect copyright violation. This is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
2007 book cover[7]. No permission. XXN, 11:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Screenshots of web pages with non-free content. No permission. Also, out of project scope.
- File:Paso 6 para borrar cache.png
- File:Paso 5 para borrar cache.png
- File:Paso 4 para borrar cache.png
- File:Store.png
- File:Droplet foto 2.png
- File:Paso 3 para borrar cache.png
XXN, 11:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. Fæ (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of the United Kingdom, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Bizarre, of course toys have copyright in the UK, regardless of whether it is listed in the Commons summary. --Fæ (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Only a small portion of the toy is visible, and no evidence has been provided either here or in the link that such photographs are copyright violations (musings that they might be are not sufficient). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a designer toy but a simple toy that is considered an utilitarian object — NickK (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
The previous deletions request was closed as "no valid reason for deletion" on the basis of the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg, itself closed because the identical "no valid reason for deletion". This appears to ignore the valid concern that the copyright status of the stuffed toy which is the focus of this photograph remains unstated and unproven. After a series of counter-views by experienced Commons contributors at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Interpreting_COM:TOYS for photographs taken by established Wikimedians, I am raising a second request.
This is a breach of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
There has been no evidence presented that the toy is public domain. Commons policies should be applied equitably regardless of who the photographer is, or how the photograph is being used. When closing this request, a closing administrator should take care to put valid copyright concerns and any significant doubt, above popular consensus. Fæ (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Unfortunately toys like this have been ruled copyrightable in the U.S. on many occasions. Almost certainly fair use and very cute, and aggravating that Commons would have to step on Wikimedia events, but the Wikimedia Foundation has forbidden Commons to keep files under a fair use rationale. So unless they want to add a particular exception for Wikimedia events, by the best guess of the law, photos like this are derivative works of a copyrighted element. If there was a documenting photo of the event which happened to show the toy, those are probably OK, but photos focusing on the toy are almost certainly problematic. Delete Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as being, directly, an image of a copyrighted 'stuffed animal. Please see User:Elcobbola/Stuffed_Animals before saying we should keep this... the legal situation is explained quite well by that essay. Toys are not utilitarian objects under US law, and this fails COM:L on that basis. Reventtalk 03:39, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. Fæ (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of France, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. This is also the mascot of Wikimedia France, so it is absurd to think they would claim copyright over this, when there are many images up of this plush (I also think they would have gone after the category by now, if they really cared). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- France is no exception to EU copyright. It does not even have FoP. --Fæ (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing administrator please note, the comments made above were shortly before the WMF enacted a global office ban for Kevin Rutherford's account. The evidence for the ban remains unpublished. --Fæ (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please discuss arguments, not people — NickK (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Multichill. Trizek from FR 11:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Fæ. --★ Poké95 11:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a designer toy but a simple toy that is considered an utilitarian object — NickK (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The WikiCon DR quoted above appears to have failed to take into account copyright rationales and included a personal attack by the closing administrator. As such it cannot be considered to set a precedent for other deletion requests, or be thought a neutral closure based on current policy or an understanding of copyright law. The focus of the photograph is on a decorative plushie with sufficient design and artistic elements to be copyrightable, suggestions that plushies may be legally considered utilitarian objects for copyright purposes are unsupported by cases or existing legal analysis. Were anyone convinced that the design is uncopyrightable or keen to set a useful precedent for Commons that might add to COM:TOO or COM:UA, they could ask the owning Wikimedia chapter to take photographs of the manufacturer's label for more information and analysis of the related status intellectual property, such as source country, trade mark and manufacturer. Such a precedent would make the vast majority of soft toy figures fair game for Commons to host any photograph of them, not just photographs taken at Wikimedia related events. This would be super useful as an image host, but it would undermine the current scope of Commons, and this project's usefulness as a source of verifiably legally free images for reusers such as journalists and book authors. --Fæ (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, AFAIK there are no "owning Wikimedia chapters". Secondly, your reasoning that copyright status depends on the usage of a utilitarian object is clearly wrong, as there should be no difference in copyright status between a toy used by a child and the very same toy used as a decoration. Applying your reasoning to automobiles, all photos in Category:Automobile collections or Category:Automobile museums display utilitarian objects (i.e. automobiles) that are used for decorative and not for utilitarian purposes (e.g. people come to look at those cars and not to ride them). I think that we need a serious proof that once a toy is not used for utilitarian purposes it stops being an utilitarian object from copyright point of view, and I do not see any proof of this. Thus I think that all utilitarian objects, no matter whether it's a toy or an automobile, should be treated equally and fall under COM:UA — NickK (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per NickK. --Jcb (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The previous deletion request closure relied on the reasoning from NickK, which was a radical argument based on utilitarian objects which is not reflected in COM:TOYS. Based on a series of strong counter views at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Interpreting_COM:TOYS_for_photographs_taken_by_established_Wikimedians, I am raising a second request as the photograph is a breach of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
At the current time, there has been no evidence presented that the toy is public domain. Commons policies should be applied equitably regardless of who the photographer is, or how the photograph is being used. When closing this request, a closing administrator should take care to put valid copyright concerns and any significant doubt, above popular consensus. Fæ (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Utilitarian object, so as the flag. Trizek from FR 13:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Could you explain how this particular stuffed toy white ermine is not a stuffed toy, designed for children to play with, but a utilitarian object for some other practical purpose and so demonstrably public domain rather than copyrighted? I'm having difficulty seeing that reflected in Commons policies or verifiable copyright law. Please refer to COM:UA which is specific for toys: "...toys and models do not have utilitarian aspects and therefore in the United States (where Commons is hosted) such objects are generally considered protected as copyrighted works of art."
- Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the uploader to demonstrate that the toy is public domain, no proof has yet been supplied. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Most toys are not utilitarian objects, per many many court cases. That is pretty much rock-solid in the U.S., and I would be surprised if it was any different in Europe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as being, directly, an image of a copyrighted 'stuffed animal'. Please see User:Elcobbola/Stuffed_Animals before saying we should keep this... the legal situation is explained quite well by that essay. Toys are not utilitarian objects under US law, and this fails COM:L on that basis. Reventtalk 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 06:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Also:
- File:S.laevigata-chaton femelle-Brousseau.jpeg
- File:S.laevigata-chaton mâle-Brousseau.jpeg
- File:S.laevigata-écorce-Brousseau.jpeg
- File:Salix laevigata.rameau-Brousseau.jpeg
uploder asked for copyright owner for release under "CC BY-NC 3.0" and got permission to use them "solely in the manner you described". However files were uploaded with "Public Domain" tag. So there are two issues here: tagging copyrighted content as PD and CC BY-NC 3.0 license which is not allowed on Commons. Jarekt (talk) 12:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:10, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Matt Short is the photographer. Lockheed Martin is the copyright holder. Dutch govt can't make this available under CC-0 220.253.208.8 12:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Indeed, we need OTRS permission from Matt Short and Lockheed Martin. The Dutch Ministry of Defence is not the copyright holder. --★ Poké95 12:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Not a Dutch MoD file. Permission needed. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logos, above COM:TOO.
- File:Escudo Club Avellaneda de Córdoba.jpg
- File:Escudo Club Huracán de Córdoba.jpg
- File:Escudo Atlético MEDEA Club.jpg
- File:Escudo Club Argentino Peñarol.png
XXN, 13:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logo; not "own work" and CC. XXN, 13:33, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Also out of COM:SCOPE.
XXN, 13:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:12, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Carlosjose1975 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.
- File:Samuélite.jpg
- File:Otari-CTM-10-play.jpg
- File:Lino Ángel Molero.jpg
- File:Joaquín Gómez.jpg
- File:El Teal Satélite.jpg
- File:César Arriba.jpg
- File:César Arriba al aire.jpg
- File:Dynamax-CTR-10 - copia.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:13, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Alice Tsarenko (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious own work, COM:OTRS needed.
- Kalamış Ofıcce.jpg
- Residetial "Ferikent ".jpg
- Lea Çağlayan.jpg
- ADANA TİCARET ODASI HİZMET BiNASI YARIŞMA PROJESİ.JPG
- Fox TV Turkey.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 1.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 2.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 3.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 4.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 5.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 6.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 7.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 8.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 9.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 10.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 11.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 12.jpg
- Fox TV Turkey 13.jpg
- BurakOtto (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Many of them credit Fox Television in the EXIF. Unlikely to be own work by the uploader. When creating a deletion request, please tag the files and inform the uploader of the discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:53, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The EXIF states "© 2012 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics" is the copyright holder. Defensie can't CC-0 this Titlhers (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF states "© 2012 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics" is the copyright holder, so Defensie can't CC-0 this Titlhers (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF states "© 2012 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics" is the copyright holder, so Defensie can't CC-0 this Titlhers (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF states "Lockheed Martin Fort Worth 2012" is the copyright holder, Defensie can't CC-0 this Titlhers (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF states "© 2012 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics" is the copyright holder, Defensie can't CC-0 this Titlhers (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Likely copyvio, per COM:Plushies. Fæ (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of the Netherlands, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ktr101: Brussel is the capital of Belgium and Wendy is the mascot of WMBE. Dutch law is irrelevant... But this case seems to suggest that stuffed animals can have a copyright in the Netherlands. Though the one mentioned in the court case doesn't have a own original character and is therefore not protected by copyright law. Perhaps a Flemish court would use the same rational when the stuffed animal is a faithful copy of a real animal but the "toy" needs to be out of copyright as well in the US according to site policy. I believe that the real question is if the stuffed animals are above are below TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Duly noted, as I wrote that right before bed and confused the countries. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Ktr101: Brussel is the capital of Belgium and Wendy is the mascot of WMBE. Dutch law is irrelevant... But this case seems to suggest that stuffed animals can have a copyright in the Netherlands. Though the one mentioned in the court case doesn't have a own original character and is therefore not protected by copyright law. Perhaps a Flemish court would use the same rational when the stuffed animal is a faithful copy of a real animal but the "toy" needs to be out of copyright as well in the US according to site policy. I believe that the real question is if the stuffed animals are above are below TOO. Natuur12 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing administrator please note, the comments made above were shortly before the WMF enacted a global office ban for Kevin Rutherford's account. The evidence for the ban remains unpublished. --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Please discuss arguments, not people — NickK (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep see Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. Multichill (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Multichill. Thryduulf (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a designer toy but a simple toy that is considered an utilitarian object — NickK (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The DR quoted above appears to have failed to take into account copyright rationales and included a personal attack by the closing administrator. As such it cannot be considered to set a precedent for other deletion requests or be thought a neutral closure based on current policy or an understanding of copyright law. The focus of the photograph is on two decorative plushies with sufficient design and artistic elements to be copyrightable, suggestions that these may be legally considered utilitarian objects for copyright purposes are unsupported by cases or existing legal analysis. Were anyone convinced that these designs were uncopyrightable or keen to set a useful precedent for Commons that might add to COM:TOO or COM:UA, they could ask the owning Wikimedia chapters to take photographs of the manufacturer's labels for more information and analysis of the related status intellectual property such as source countries, trade marks and manufacturers. Such a precedent would make the vast majority of soft toy figures fair game for Commons to host any photograph of them, not just photographs taken at Wikimedia related events. --Fæ (talk) 16:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
- Firstly, AFAIK there are no "owning Wikimedia chapters". Secondly, your reasoning that copyright status depends on the usage of a utilitarian object is clearly wrong, as there should be no difference in copyright status between a toy used by a child and the very same toy used as a decoration. Applying your reasoning to automobiles, all photos in Category:Automobile collections or Category:Automobile museums display utilitarian objects (i.e. automobiles) that are used for decorative and not for utilitarian purposes (e.g. people come to look at those cars and not to ride them). I think that we need a serious proof that once a toy is not used for utilitarian purposes it stops being an utilitarian object from copyright point of view, and I do not see any proof of this. Thus I think that all utilitarian objects, no matter whether it's a toy or an automobile, should be treated equally and fall under COM:UA — NickK (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The idea of PRP is the other way around. The burden of proof is to verify the copyright release, not to verify it is a copyright violation. Toys are not utilitarian objects by default. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- COM:PRP states there should be a significant doubt, not just a random doubt. In a similar DR you asked me to cite a US court case, and I cited you a US court case stating that toys are useful objects. I do not think that something recognised by US courts can still qualify as a significant doubt, otherwise we can use PRP to delete the entire Category:Toys — NickK (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
- The idea of PRP is the other way around. The burden of proof is to verify the copyright release, not to verify it is a copyright violation. Toys are not utilitarian objects by default. --Fæ (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. --Jcb (talk) 08:27, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
The previous deletions request was closed on the basis of the closure of Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg, itself closed because "no valid reason for deletion". This appears to ignore the valid concern that the copyright status of the two stuffed toys remains unstated and unproven. After a series of counter-views by experienced Commons contributors at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Interpreting_COM:TOYS_for_photographs_taken_by_established_Wikimedians, I am raising a second request.
This is a breach of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
There has been no evidence presented that the toys are public domain. Commons policies should be applied equitably regardless of who the photographer is, or how the photograph is being used. When closing this request, a closing administrator should take care to put valid copyright concerns and any significant doubt, above popular consensus. Fæ (talk) 08:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Addendum with reference to the 1981 Gay Toys, Inc. v. Buddy L Corp. case quoted in the last deletion request, this was vacated on appeal in 1983 as "toys do not even have an intrinsic function other than the portrayal of the real item".[8] --Fæ (talk) 02:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as being, directly, an image of copyrighted 'stuffed animals'. Please see User:Elcobbola/Stuffed_Animals before saying we should keep this... the legal situation is explained quite well by that essay. Toys are not utilitarian objects under US law, and this fails COM:L on that basis. Reventtalk 03:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. ★ Poké95 12:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The rationale you link makes no mention of France, so this seems more like this nomination is trying to find a solution to a problem that does not exist. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing admin please note, soon after writing here, Kevin Rutherford was banned by the WMF from all Wikimedia projects. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a designer toy but a simple toy that is considered an utilitarian object — NickK (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Per COM:PRP. There is no copyright exemption for "simple toys" that look like animals or have faces, neither is there any evidence to support a case that they would be considered utilitarian objects. This latter argument is bizarre, as by definition plushies are toys without defined utility apart from use as decorative artworks or for children to play with. --Fæ (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Your reasoning that copyright status depends on the usage of a utilitarian object is clearly wrong, as there should be no difference in copyright status between a toy used by a child and the very same toy used as a decoration. Applying your reasoning to automobiles, all photos in Category:Automobile collections or Category:Automobile museums display utilitarian objects (i.e. automobiles) that are used for decorative and not for utilitarian purposes (e.g. people come to look at those cars and not to ride them). I think that we need a serious proof that once a toy is not used for utilitarian purposes it stops being an utilitarian object from copyright point of view, and I do not see any proof of this. Thus I think that all utilitarian objects, no matter whether it's a toy or an automobile, should be treated equally and fall under COM:UA — NickK (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. --Jcb (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Likely copyvio, per COM:TOYS. Permission is needed from the maker of the plushies. ★ Poké95 12:50, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I doubt if copyright can be claimed for the hat and the head (threshold of originality). --Steinsplitter (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep --Agruwie talk 18:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC) +1
- Info The uploader created the combination of Nepomuk and this particular hat. The plushy was born without a hat. Here's a non-free image of how Nepomuk normally and initially looks like. --Raimund Liebert (WMAT) (talk) 20:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per the above rationale. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Closing admin please note, shortly after writing here, Kevin Rutherford was banned by the WMF from all Wikimedia projects. The reason for the ban is unpublished. --Fæ (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg and COM:TOYS. This is not a toy designed by some external designer but the maker here is from Wikimedia Austria and the uploader is also from Wikimedia Austria, so there is no copyright problem here — NickK (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Petit tigre on the top of Manhattan.jpg and COM:PRP. Sewing a hat on a commercial toy does not mean that the toy no longer has any copyright. If this photograph is kept, then I'll happily use it as a precedent to create photographs of some film merchandising figures with hats on, and see whether they can make it under PRP. --Fæ (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- The hat depicted here, the Wikipedia logo and a Danke sign are the clearly the main elements of the image. The only visible elements of the original toys are eyes and nose, and they are very unlikely to be considered original enough in any country — NickK (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. --Jcb (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
In the prior deletion discussion, just over six months ago, the closure relied on Commons:Deletion requests/File:WikiCon 2015-Maskottchen.jpg. Since then that reference DR was reversed and the image deleted.
The photograph fails to meet the official guidelines of COM:TOYS, specifically:
- When uploading a picture of a toy, you must show that the toy is in the public domain in both the United States and in the source country of the toy. In the United States, copyright is granted for toys even if the toy is ineligible for copyright in the source country.
The focus of this photograph is a toy for which there is no evidence of copyright status, something that could be easily rectified by WMAT checking the label. The hat has been sewn on to a commercial product, and the copyright should be assessed as we would any other figurative toy with a hat on it and partially obscured. Were this a Donald Duck or Kermit the Frog figure with a hat on, it would be an easier decision. The copyright holder for this toy should be afforded the same consideration as we would for the Disney corporation.
For an in-depth background and explanation of Commons copyright policies, refer to the Stuffed Animals essay and the precedent of prior closely related deletion requests:
- Petit tigre
- Erminig
- Wendy the Weasel & Percy Plush
- Wikimania 2014 Day 1
- Jimmy Wales meeting Mr Penguin
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
-- Fæ (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, still standing for my position in the previous DR. Commons requires media to be free both in the United States (where the Wikimedia servers are located) and the source country. Maybe this is free in the source country, but not in the U.S., as they don't consider toys as utilitarian objects. The focus of this photograph is also on the toy, so not even eligible for de minimis. --★ Poké95 10:36, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Clearly infringes on the toy's copyright. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from comics. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep De Minimis applies, as Buckler is the central focus. Nightscream (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- If he is in focus, comics could be cropped or blanked. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Cropping them out would defeat the purpose of the photo, as it was taken, and was it is used in his WP article, which is to show him at a table of his works. The images are already at a sub-optimal viewing angle, and not clearly in focus as he is, which I think sufficiently prevents anyone from using the photo to duplicate those images or infringe upon the ability of the holder of those images' copyrights to profit from them. Nightscream (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:DM not applicable for this picture. --Jcb (talk) 08:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:Punisher
[edit]Non-trivial logo and Commons:Derivative works from it.
- File:Czaszka punisher.png
- File:Deuce Four Skull.jpg
- File:The Punisher E3 2004.jpg
- File:The Punisher.svg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for File:Deuce Four Skull.jpg because the country of origin is Iraq so the Punisher Skull is not copyrighted in Iraq and in the US it would be also ok per FOP.--Sanandros (talk) 20:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the skull not copyrighted in Iraq if Iraq is the source country? Iraq only protects works whose source country is Iraq, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because the skull was first published in the US so Iraq doesn't respect that copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- If it was first published in the United States, then the source country is the United States, not Iraq. Also, since the source country is the United States, it is copyrighted in the United States and all Berne Convention countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yea the skull it self may be copyrighted but sprayed on a wall makes it FOP in the US.--Sanandros (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- In the United States, you can take photos which are part of a building, but I'm not sure that spraying an image on a building makes the image a part of a building. If someone puts an advertisement on a building, a photograph of the advertisement would normally be deleted on Commons. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yea the skull it self may be copyrighted but sprayed on a wall makes it FOP in the US.--Sanandros (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- If it was first published in the United States, then the source country is the United States, not Iraq. Also, since the source country is the United States, it is copyrighted in the United States and all Berne Convention countries. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Because the skull was first published in the US so Iraq doesn't respect that copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 06:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Why is the skull not copyrighted in Iraq if Iraq is the source country? Iraq only protects works whose source country is Iraq, I think. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
人の表情が確認できる 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
人の顔の表情が確認できる為。 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Request by uploader (though the request is evidently being made because there's an identifiable person in the image), and it's a pretty low-quality image that's not in use anyway. If I understand the file description correctly, it's intended to be a view of the inside of a restaurant or a type of restaurant. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Устаревшая информация. Nusha79 (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
as per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Alien logo.png Sreejith K (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
人の表情が確認できる為 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
人の顔の表情が確認できる為。 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 17:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
人の表情が確認できる為 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
人の顔の表情が確認できる為。 江戸村のとくぞう (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheWilliamBlake (talk · contribs)
[edit]Likely copyright violations (what metadata there is credits various organizations (CUNAPHOTO.IT, Waifproject) . The photographers should confirm the license via COM:OTRS.
- File:Robert-Shwartzman.JPG
- File:Robert f4 monza.jpg
- File:Robert formula-4 podium.JPG
- File:Robert-Shwartzman-race.jpg
- File:Robert-Shwartzman-Forza-Racing.jpg
- File:Robert-Shwartzman-2.jpg
- File:Роберт Шварцман.jpg
Storkk (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TheWilliamBlake (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work. Small size, no metadata.
Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 19:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Khomsavoyages (talk · contribs)
[edit]Scope and copyright concerns (underlying photos unlikely to be created by the company, see for example second watermark on File:Khomsa_Voyages_Desert.jpg)
- File:Logo Khomsa Voyages.png
- File:Khomsa Voyages La vie en couleurs.jpg
- File:Khomsa Voyages Unique Sensation.jpg
- File:Khomsa Voyages Only for you.jpg
- File:Khomsa Voyages Desert.jpg
- File:Khomsa Voyages.png
Storkk (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Metadata credits a "Kimmo Mäntylä" who should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Metadata credits a HILMI SONMEZ, who should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
likely not own work, found at https://twitter.com/SousSol819. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Studio portrait. Photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Professional studio portrait. Photographer should confirm license by following the instructions on COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Dubious claim of {{Own work}}. If uploader is the copyright holder, that should be confirmed via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
No metadata, likely professional shot: photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. Storkk (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
probable copyvio (daijiworld.com) Pippobuono (talk) 15:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
probably not the user own work, copyvio ? Pippobuono (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
robably not the downloader own work, copyvio ? Pippobuono (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Info: Google Image Search didn't returned results prior to uploading (2013), so little proof of copyvio. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
probable copyvio, shivallibrahmins.com Pippobuono (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logos. IMO, above COM:TOO.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.gif&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
XXN, 16:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Farhod2420 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-free logos. Not "own work" and CC.
XXN, 16:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Non-free logo. Not "own work" and CC. Also, for me looks above COM:TOO. XXN, 16:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is a derivative work of non-free works, and without FoP exclusion, etc Titlhers (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete No FOP in Belgium. --★ Poké95 02:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The image was not taken in Belgium, but at San Jose, California according to the geotag. Hopeful Duck (talk) 18:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - for a copy of a 2D work the outcome is the same, whether USA or Belgium. --Jcb (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Screenshot of a web page with non-free content - No permission. XXN, 17:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 09:54, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The EXIF data states: "Copyright 2010 ©2010 Lockheed Martin Corporation - All Rights Reserved". As such it is not the work of US government and it is not in the public domain Titlhers (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Error in file 89.66.66.43 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep File fixed Elisfkc (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
File:U.S. Sailors stand at attention during the rollout ceremony for the first F-35C Lightning II aircraft squadron, Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 101, at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., Oct. 1, 2013 131001-N-ZZ999-001.jpg
[edit]_101,_at_Eglin_Air_Force_Base,_Fla.,_Oct._1,_2013_131001-N-ZZ999-001.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_101,_at_Eglin_Air_Force_Base,_Fla.,_Oct._1,_2013_131001-N-ZZ999-001.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
EXIF states in the Copyright Holder "© 2013 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics" -- Lockheed is not US govt entity (even though it is a recipient of an obscene amount of US govt funds), so it can't be in the public domain without Lockheed agreeing Titlhers (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is a courtesy photo, as shown at https://www.dvidshub.net/image/1029847/f-35c-lightning-ii-carrier-variant-aircraft-squadron. The release statement is "U.S. Navy photo courtesy of Lockheed Martin by Angel DelCueto/Released", both on the DVIDS page and in the EXIF, which confirms it as public domain. The attribution is correct as in the EXIF, and no specific other copyright license is claimed in the EXIF. --Fæ (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF states in copyright holder: "Copyright c 2011 Lockheed Martin Corporation" -- Lockheed is not a US govt entity, so it can't be PD as work of govt Titlhers (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
EXIF in copyright holder states: "© 2012 Lockheed Martin Corporation - All Rights Reserved" -- lockheed is not US govt, so not work of us govt Titlhers (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. FredWalsh (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
not below too, pd-textlogo does not apply Krd 18:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Hégésippe Cormier as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|This image is copyrighted, no reliable source is given, and there is no proof that the uploader has any right to upload it under a free license. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 16:18, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Converted by me to DR to allow the uploader for comment. However, the nominators rationale is reasonable. As the depicted died in 1955, the photo cannot have been shot in 2016. -- Túrelio (talk) 18:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violations Meysam (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
File is only used on promotional userpage TJH2018 talk 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
File is used only for a promotional userpage TJH2018 talk 19:07, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Picture has no encyclopedic value. Used only on a promotional userpage. TJH2018 talk 19:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The upload was an error. Akruljev (talk) 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Questionable authorship claims based on the low resolution and missing metadata. Possibly a screenshot of a non-free television show. Based on the uploader's username, the uploader may be the subject of the photo, and in that case, he is unlikely to be the author; this does not appear to be a selfie. —LX (talk, contribs) 20:11, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The upload was an error. Akruljev (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-09-15).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-09-15).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Self nomination of low quality file replaced by the equivalent and higher quality File:1994-1995 Holden Barina (SB) Swing 5-door hatchback (17118879980).jpg and File:1994-1995 Holden Barina (SB) Swing 5-door hatchback (2009-06-28).jpg (plus other files within Category:Holden Barina (SB)). The deletion of this image would be in accordance with COM:Redundant.
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(17118879980).jpg){kind=link}
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2009-06-28).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
This file has been nominated because:
- It is of low resolution
- It is grainy/blurry
I note that the above-mentioned category contains numerous other higher quality files to satisfy the needs of this project and beyond. Wikimedia Commons is not a repository of junk files, but should be a compendium of quality files where possible. When we have multiple files of the same topic in a category, curating this down to only show images of better quality is appropriate and supported by COM:NOTUSED. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-09-15).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-09-15).jpg){kind=link}
Images seem to have culled from http://www.tiranainternational.com/portal/index.php/en/ but uploaded as "own work". Possible copyright violations.
- File:Tirana International Hotel & Conference Centre.jpg
- File:Deluxe suite.jpg
- File:Lobby Bar.jpg
- File:Indoor Swimming Pool & Spa.jpg
- File:Veranda view.jpg
- File:Terraca View.jpg
- File:Hotel Tirana 2012.jpg
Takeaway (talk) 20:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not sure: full exif and higher resolution as files on website. --Albinfo (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that the uploader might actually be a COI/paid contributor to wikipedia who has been sent full res images from the hotel. Perhaps npd is more applicable in this case? - Takeaway (talk) 18:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: COI/paid seems likely - out of scope anyway. --Jcb (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
no FOP inside in the Buildings in Germany 83.135.57.9 21:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
A reason why this image is free licensed is needed (or in the public domain), not obvious. Strakhov (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
At the very least, definitely not an "own work" but uploader's scan of IPCC's derivative of Nobel Committee diploma based on artwork of w:no:Britt Juul and calligraphy of Inger Magnus made specially for 2007 awards and copyrighted by Nobel Foundation (http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/ipcc-diploma.html). Unless we consider Nobel Foundation content free by default or have a permission from them - it's a copyvio. Tatewaki (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Reply Teodor.phi: The scan contains two documents, the Nobel Commitee's award to the IPCC and the IPCC award to O. Sirotenko. Since this is a combination of two different documents, the term "own work" refers only to the scan. No infringement to the authors and artists was intended. The documents were scanned and posted with the express approval of the subject's heirs. However, since this image is no longer used on wiki, it may be freely deleted.
- Explanation for the uploader In this case, just for future - (1) scanning of the document does not create new copyright/authorship, you can mark "own work" only if you are author of the image (photographer of an object considered to be in public domain itself, or an artist who made an artwork); (2) Wikimedia Commons rules do not allow an upload of anything "posted with the express approval of the subject's heirs" (not to mention that there's no proof of such approval) - only the content clearly released by all of its authors under acceptable free license (allowing not just "reposting" but also derivative works and commercial use) or in public domain either by its nature or time passed after death of authors (depending on national laws, in many cases 70 years). ICPP's font-based text work does not cancel author rights of NF artist and calligrapher; thus main permission should be given not by ICPP or awardee or his heirs - but, in this case, at least by artist Britt Juul or, if she has passed all her rights to the Nobel Foundation (which is unknown) - by foundation. There's no evidence of any of these. Tatewaki (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Not educationally useful, private image IA (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Not wanted
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The picture appears in other sites (such as this one). No OTRS release approval has been received, hence it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The picture appears in other sites (such as this one). No OTRS release approval has been received, hence it has no place in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This logo cannot be considered too simple not to be copyrighted. All the files this uploader has uploaded are copied from other sites without any OTRS release note - it is simply a copyrights violation and therefore, this file has nothing to do in the Commons. Ldorfman (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-06-25).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-06-25).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Self nomination of low quality file replaced by the equivalent and higher quality File:1995-1997 Holden Barina (SB) Swing 5-door hatchback (19669722092).jpg (and other files within Category:Holden Barina (SB)). The deletion of this image would be in accordance with COM:Redundant.
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(19669722092).jpg){kind=link}
This file has been nominated because:
- It is of low resolution
- It has proportion/distortion issues
- It is grainy/blurry
I note that the above-mentioned category contains numerous other higher quality files to satisfy the needs of this project and beyond. Wikimedia Commons is not a repository of junk files, but should be a compendium of quality files where possible. When we have multiple files of the same topic in a category, curating this down to only show images of better quality is appropriate and supported by COM:NOTUSED. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-06-25).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
_Swing_5-door_hatchback_(2008-06-25).jpg){kind=link}
- File:Bannu District Map.png
- Copyright violation, screen capture taken from Google Maps, including elements from Google Chrome browser and Windows 7 desktop
- File:Central-Library-University-of-Science-and-Technology Technology-Bannu.jpg
- Copyright violation, downloaded from http://nativepakistan.com/photos-of-bannu-district-bannu-pics-images/
- File:Shakhi Gate Kulachi.jpg
- Likely a copyright violation as well, lacks proper EXIF metadata.
Falsified licensing data provided by uploader. In the case of the map image, this is a screen capture from Google Maps, the CC-by-SA 4.0 claim is patently false. The remaining two images lack EXIF metadata and appear to have also been downloaded from the internet as well. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Derivative work - Mayby COM:DM? Sufficient doubt to convert to a regular DR. Jcb (talk) 18:13, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
see my earlier explanation File talk:Badge-cardboard-gandi-Nehru-Tamil Nadu.JPG. --Info-farmer (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is the picture in the middle. But COM:DM may apply. Jcb (talk) 09:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete in particular, derivative work inset—either replace the illustration with something free use or scrap the photo. The rest of the image appears simple czar 02:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, DW, not DM. --Krd 09:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Géode
[edit]There is no FOP in France for architectural works. The sphere is the main subject of the photo.
- File:Citta della scienza - panoramio - giovanni zagaria.jpg
- File:La Geode e 2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:La Geode ^quot,The Mirror^quot - panoramio.jpg
68.193.210.74 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Krd 09:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Files in Category:La Géode
[edit]There is no commercial freedom of panorama in France. All of these images under commercial-type Creative Commons licenses violate the posthumous copyright of the dead architects, w:fr:Adrien Fainsilber (1932–2023) and Engineer w:fr:Gérard Chamayou (1929–2019). A commercial license permit from their heirs is required.
- File:Close-up of La Géode.jpg
- File:Géode (22479224827).jpg
- File:La Géode in July 2022 2.jpg
- File:La Géode in July 2022 3.jpg
- File:La Géode in July 2022 4.jpg
- File:La Géode in July 2022.jpg
- File:Panorama in the Parc de la Villette - La Géode 2.jpg
- File:Panorama in the Parc de la Villette - La Géode.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:35, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)