Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2016/05/08
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
nothing --Tuandiep1 (talk) 10:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No reason for deletion provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
COM:COPYVIOs ... a Fan Gallery of a singer/guitar player, includes all album covers and publicity photos, not own work.
- File:Sungha Jung Lakewood A48CP acoustic guitar.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung aNueNue Signature Mahogany ANN SHJ2 Concert Size ukulele.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's new album L'Atelier.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album L'Atelier.png
- File:Sungha Jung's album Two of Me.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album Irony.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album The Duets.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album Perfect Blue.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album Paint it Acoustic.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung's album Monologue.jpg
- File:Sungha Jung Signature.svg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: All files have apparently been deleted by Magog the Ogre. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Syusuf2016 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Syusuf2016 (serial copyright violator). All files (mostly sourced with a random link) probadly grabbed from Internet.
- File:Muhammad arturo cerulli.jpg
- File:Logo BP4.png
- File:UIN SUNAN GUNUNG DJATI.jpg
- File:Photo adipati panaekan.jpg
- File:Cimuntur Citanduy.jpg
- File:Cimuntur1.jpg
- File:Cimuntur.jpg
- File:Gunung cakrabuana.jpg
- File:Foto-tjetje-somantri.jpg
- File:N.djamas.jpg
- File:Menteri Sudarsono .jpg
- File:Sudarsono menteri.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 05:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: All uploads deleted, unfree files taken from external sources. Link provided by the uploader in the file description in some cases. @Syusuf2016: Regretably those files fail our criteria, see Commons:Licensing and Commons:Project scope. --Martin H. (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Transporte pc.jpg
Copyright violation variant of English Wikipedia Power Rangers 2017 Logo 78.146.140.77 13:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Tagged for speedy deletion and deleted. Especially not uploader JoshWilks (talk · contribs) own work as claimed. --Martin H. (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ye Minn Soe (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope, Commons is not a private photo album.
★ Poké95 14:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, he has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in en.wiki and uploading some photos about himself into Commons. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the message sent to the OTRS team, the file should be treated as "cc-by-nc-nd". As explained to the sender of the mail with the supposedly release form, it has no place in the Commons under this license. Ldorfman (talk) 15:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Question: Why don't ask the copyright holder to change the license and explain why the NC-ND is not allowed instead? --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: The deletion request is not needed. We already have {{OTRS received}} template. It gives 30 days to try to get permission. After that the file will be delete. -- Geagea (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Not the flag of Bridgetown. This is a fictional proposed flag for Taiwan. Fry1989 eh? 18:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This is not the flag of Bridgetown, Barbados. Fry1989 eh? 17:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Copy of an image deleted in May. Delete it.--100.36.171.168 17:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom, file was created by a globally locked vandal and is used for vandalism. --★ Poké95 12:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Obviously not the flag of St John's. This is the former flag of the Japanese Army. Fry1989 eh? 18:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trevor40 as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: False author and are not self-made photos! A version can be found here: SCRIS DE O.S. ⋅ 05/04/2016 ⋅ LASĂ UN COMENTARIU http://www.oricesport.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Irina-Begu-courtesy-wikipedia.org_.jpg and http://www.tennisexpress.com/category.cfm/tennis/irina-begu
Describe the author of the original photo EXIF and IPTC data !! - First source specifically states "2012/10" in the link, which is after this was published. ~riley (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Describe the author of the original photo EXIF and IPTC data
Please describe the author of the original photo EXIF data and IPTC !! Failing that, the photo has been uploaded data is not real! The author's name is false. The use of such photos is not allowed even if they received permission!
You must present a photo IPTC and EXIF data. This can prove the ownership. --Trevor40 (talk) 19:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
I inform the leadership of the uploading user abuse of! --Trevor40 (talk) 20:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
If User: Regasterios tricked everyone deserves punishment. Rights to be taken away! --Trevor40 (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Copivio. COM:EVID + COM:L => lo size nonEXIF illegal DBOYZ image of Koji Seto from set. eg. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FLIhPqLaKF4/Tbw_oQpgLJI/AAAAAAAACPw/uNcrs4NqefA/s1600/seto+kouji5.png Wikipediasex (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Anna Bell Peaks Inked 2015 3.jpg Ghkldsada (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion. ★ Poké95 08:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC) (non-admin close)
copyvio clear Triplecaña (talk) 22:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted by ~riley: Copyright violation, found elsewhere on the web and unlikely to be own work - Using VisualFileChange.
suspect that the image is downloaded, not the person's own work --Zoizit (talk) 15:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The picture is all over the net. Example: https://short-biography.com/maddie-ziegler.htm --Pugilist (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --|EPO| da: 17:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pencerah Anda (talk · contribs)
[edit]Logo/icon, not own work.
Stefan2 (talk) 12:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violations. ~riley (talk) 22:14, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
suspect that the image is not the own work of the uploader, given the nature of the other files uploaded TherasTaneel (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 06:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
A higher-definition photo of the same picture is available Desyman (talk) 01:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, only 200×255 pixels, bigger file is file:Ritratto di Ferdinando Gonzaga.jpg. Taivo (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Delete vanity image; out of scope: no educational use czar 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, signature of user, who has no other contributions. Taivo (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Self promotion Fixertool (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Vanity. Self promotion Fixertool (talk) 01:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Jeormen (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Commons, except userpage and uploading some personal photos, which are used nowhere, except on the userpage. All his activity in Commons is out of project scope. Jorge Menelio Trochez is not mentioned neither is en.wiki nor in es.wiki. Taivo (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope. Vanity. Self promotion Fixertool (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata. Taivo (talk) 10:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused file, probably copyright violation as it is a screenshot from Minecraft UAwiki (talk) 02:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Superseded by file:Logo of the al-Moutasem Brigade.jpg Editor abcdef (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
porque no contiene nada de información Karla Martínez Bastías (talk) 05:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, no info here except welcome message and the user has no contributions except creation of this request. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD01000ac0030000b0180000f0320000b7350000d437000095440000b37400009c790000dd7d00006182000063dc0000 grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, this is the uploader's last remaining contribution. Taivo (talk) 11:28, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Very low definition periodic table. Unuseful for practical purposes UAwiki (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, 220×125 pixels is too few for periodic table. Taivo (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
We have better versions of this image, like File:Logotipo del PSOE.svg UAwiki (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ARClitePangloss (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:ARClitePangloss
- File:GJpic.jpg
- File:GaryJohnson2016portrait.png
- File:Phil11.jpg
- File:Lilycrop.png
- File:Lilysmall.png
- File:Lily11.png
Gunnex (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Flag of Mongolia.svg. Fry1989 eh? 18:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 11:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Justinzero1 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. File:13015517 227862714238423 4304267365891018350 ninzero1musicjust.jpg, also per FBMD..., obviously grabbed from Facebook.
- File:1546020 175974975906588 5881940850937913045 nzeroone.jpg
- File:13015517 227862714238423 4304267365891018350 ninzero1musicjust.jpg
- File:Justin1music.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook.
Gunnex (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 19:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Icoloriperlapace (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... grabbed from Facebook. User indef blocked at itwiki.
- File:1) romania.jpg
- File:2) romania (1).jpg
- File:4) levigliani 1 (1).jpg
- File:8) volegno 1 (1).jpg
- File:Expo (5).jpg
- File:Expo (1).jpg
Gunnex (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, some collages, where source and author of used images were not shown, some derivative works of drawings of unknown persons. Taivo (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
self promotuion, unused Pippobuono (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused photo without metadata. I'll delete also file:Pabo-headquarters.png due to same reason. These are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
This photograph, with the name of batch, includes identifiable individuals taken in opening ceremony in university where people have an expectation of privacy. 153.142.61.14 09:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept, what?! There is no privacy in university opening ceremonies! Taivo (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be copy from here. No exif, small size. 128.68.59.229 09:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete also bigger version of that: file:Андрей Мельков.jpg. They are the uploader's last remaining contributions. Taivo (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook. May be also out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album + advertising or self-promotion. No educational purpose: Not used. Related dewiki entry speedy deleted. Gunnex (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 21:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamedaminezemouri (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused personal photos out of project scope. --Rrburke (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jenndoherty11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... probadly also grabbed from Facebook. Uploaded since 02.2016. Considering also:
- File:HollyWeb 2016 Awards.jpg --> copyrighted by "Snobby Robot Multimedia"
- File:HollyWeb 2016 Q&A.jpg (uploaded 28.04.2016) --> https://www.facebook.com/hollywebfestival/photos/a.140977785972396.27574.139206832816158/980065442063622/?type=3&theater (06.04.2016)
- File:HollyWeb Panel.jpg (uploaded 06.02.2016) --> https://www.facebook.com/hollywebfestival/photos/a.254409291295911.55727.139206832816158/958482800888553/?type=3&theater (2015)
Gunnex (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, I'll delete also file:PaulaBrendan2016.jpg as copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... and photographer = "Dariusz Giers" probadly grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from software.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: QGIS is licensed under the GNU General Public License. --Amitie 10g (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2016 (UTC) (Non-admin closure)
It depicts the wrong Indian Map. This constitutes a Criminal Offence. 117.195.129.208 12:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I don't know what map is being referred to here, but we don't concern ourselves with such laws; should, as is not improbable, both sides in a border dispute issue conflicting laws of how their borders should look in maps, worrying about them would prevent us from having maps on the region at all!--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept, vandalistic nomination. Taivo (talk) 07:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Taivo (talk) 08:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Original picture deleted from File:Anniemermaid.png.--Liji (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, uploader's request. Taivo (talk) 08:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
At http://eol.org/data_objects/19843406 it says (c) Andrew Borcher, CC By-NC-SA, ie non-commercial so not Commons Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, license review failed. Taivo (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
This is new to me: I see a red X under the image, saying that it should be removed from Commons, so I'm nominating it for deletion. Also, a different version can be found here [1]. The version posted on Flickr by Leonard Bentley has an earlier date, I think, but the one I found is copyrighted. Someone isn't telling the truth. In fact, perhaps the image belongs to a different person. I think proof of ownership is required via COM:OTRS because of the conflicting information. Dontreader (talk) 07:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation: Flickr account from bad authors list. Green Giant (talk) 23:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal images; out of the project scope. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Agree --Milićević (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
out of scope, polemical Pippobuono (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope, insufficient description Pippobuono (talk) 09:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
personal photos, out of scope Pippobuono (talk) 09:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Too blurry to be of any use. Takeaway (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nina Monteuse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused promo materials of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:Nuit Debout - Tract Fonctionnement Patience et Confiance.pdf
- File:Nuit Debout - Formule.png
- File:Nuit Debout - Signalétique Cloud.png
- File:Nuit Debout - Affiche Soutient au collectif des Sans Papiers.jpg
- File:Nuit Debout - Tract - Qu'est-ce que Nuit Debout ?.pdf
- File:Nuit Debout - Tract quotidien - Lille.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Juste a note about the false affirmation "Unused promo materials". We could not know if a media is used ;) Wikimedia Commons can be connect to non-wikimedia wikis. A lot of Commonists are not aware of that.
- For example, the first file is used, see https://wiki.nuitdebout.fr/wiki/Fichier:Nuit_Debout_-_Tract_Fonctionnement_Patience_et_Confiance.pdf Pyb (talk) 08:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete All files are promotional and all files are now unused. Taivo (talk) 09:08, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Gunnex (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose: Not used. Per FBMD... grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Small unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's last remaining contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
unusable — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpiderMum (talk • contribs) 2016-05-02T22:08:46 (UTC)
- Agreed as uploader. Sorry about that. --MarkTraceur (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, too low quality. Out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
out of COM:SCOPE - unused personal image INeverCry 17:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Very blurry image of an unidentified location. Of no educational use. Not a unique resource. Many images of these trees are much better. Takeaway (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused simple logo with unclear notability, maybe out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 17:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
There is no indication of a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license at the source. Works of the independent Federal Reserve Banks are not covered by {{PD-USGov-Federal Reserve}}, and I can find no evidence that they are in the public domain for another reason. The underlying data is PD as pure factual data, so this chart could be recreated under a free license. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Green Giant (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
bad joke? no educatioanal value, not used Avron (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stas1995 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope ~riley (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stas1995 as Speedy (db) and the most recent rationale was: out of scope ~riley (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 05:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 03:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by File:DANIZH_KHAN_2016.jpg. Same picture. Stang 03:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete both, unused personal logos. And delete also file:DanizhKhan Signature.png as unused personal signature. Taivo (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Per COM:PRP: Quite unlikey that G doodee (talk · contributions · Statistics) is the creator of all these (complex) official symbols (TV, ministry, football clubs, organizations, etc.). Obviously all files grabbed somewhere from Internet. Uploaded since 04.2016. Ignoring some files which would be in PD anyway.
- File:GMM 25B.png
- File:GMM CH 2.png
- File:TV3 1983.png
- File:NUTD 2016.png
- File:สร้างชาตื.png
- File:ตรานารายณ์.png
- File:Current BBC coat of arms.png
- File:Yamaha League Division 1 2016.png
- File:Toyota Thai League 2016.png
Gunnex (talk) 04:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete all. Taivo (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Not own work, logos seem copyrightable.
- File:EFL Cup 2016.png
- File:เจแอสแอล.jpg
- File:SBS 2015.png
- File:5 News 2016.png
- File:BBC Three Ident 2016.jpg
Nemo 09:40, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
- Keep File:SBS 2015.png and File:BBC Three Ident 2016.jpg. Those are below the threshold. Fry1989 eh? 19:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: 3 deleted 2 kept per above. --INeverCry 01:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This photo is copyrighted./本图片是有版权的，疑似侵权。 Shwangtianyuan (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found in the WEB. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This photo is copyrighted./本图片是有版权的，疑似侵权。 Shwangtianyuan (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published on the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This photo is copyrighted./本图片是有版权的，疑似侵权。 Shwangtianyuan (talk) 05:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published on the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This photo is copyrighted./本图片是有版权的，疑似侵权。 Shwangtianyuan (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, derivative of a cover. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication uploader took this photo. Seems to have been lifted from the web. William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete It looks like the image originated from This page here. Reverse image search popped up multiple places which all linked back to this page, and there is no indication or information that it is the uploaders original work. --Hamez0 (talk) 05:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, can be found previously published on the web. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF, uploaded in a row on 24.04.2016 for en:Abhay Kumar, an Indian poet-diplomat. Considering also:
- File:Poet-Diplomat Abhay K.jpg --> https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150170255647491&set=ecnf.593757490&type=3&theater (2011)
- File:Abhay K signing his book for actress Kalki Koechlin.jpg --> per
FBMD...probadly grabbed from Facebook.
- File:Poet-Diplomat Abhay K.jpg
- File:Vijay Seshadri, Abhay K, Arvind Krishna Mehrotra and Girish Karnad at Jaipur Literature Festival 2015.jpg
- File:Abhay K signing his book for actress Kalki Koechlin.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Angel churata (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.
- File:TRABAJO DE TERMODINAMICA CICLO OTTO.pdf
- File:PROYECTO DE ELEMENTOS DE SUJECIÓN, ANCLAJE Y CIERRE.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 06:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image Leitoxx Work • Talk • Mail 17:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Now the photo is used in uk.wiki. Taivo (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Taivo & Leitoxx: Note that the file has been nominated twice. The other deletion discussion about this file is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Melan97. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: This was apparently deleted by Jianhui67 (talk · contribs) although without closing this discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
John Ganim himself took this photo and emailed it to me so I could post it. It is a selfie by John Ganim. People are making it very hard for me to get a Wikipedia page up for this important professor and writer.
Deleted: per nomination. Please ask the person who took the photo to send an email to Wikimedia using the sample at COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Anna Shtyrlina (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo materials and non-trivial logo. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.european-biotechnology-news.com/typo3temp/pics/620x349xE_0d69ef32c9.jpg.pagespeed.ic.igwuskZP95.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manoella Porto (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own works: historical photos may be in public domain by other means but relevant info (proper author/date of creation or first disclosure/country of creation information) must be provided to determine copyrights status. Source country: Brazil. File:Assinatura da emancipação de São Luis.jpg most likely taken 1953 (Brazilian municipality pt:São Luís de Montes Belos was founded in this year). Fails also {{PD-Brazil-media}} (+70 years disclosure).
Gunnex (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unclear copyright status and unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF, considering also (uploaded on 08.05.2016) previously published via http://www.nikolalutz.de/deutsch/about.htm = http://www.nikolalutz.de/images/nikola_grau.jpg (last modified: 2015) Gunnex (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:07, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
suspect that the image is downloaded, not the person's own work --Zoizit (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- It seems to be copied from this page http://www.ziegler-girls.com/kode-magazine/ --Pugilist (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. See this page for example of publication elsewhere. Green Giant (talk) 11:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, find in multiple external sites, for example, http://www.mediander.com/connects/18953642/murat-k%C3%B6pr%C3%BCl%C3%BC/#!/topic/-/ I suspect copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --★ Poké95 02:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Tiny photo without metadata, the user's last remaining upload. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Violation of COM:FAIRUSE Nascar1996 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No license. Green Giant (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Selena Gomez at the American Music Awards of 2015, or at least wearing the same dress, not likely own work as with the other files uploaded by the user TherasTaneel (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 99of9 as no source (no source since)
- This has an OTRS ticket and a {{Self}} template, so is more source information really needed? Stefan2 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have forgotten this file completely, and any investigation I did at the time. The Google translation of the caption on the es-wiki usage is "The Fraila 'portrait published by the City of Valdepeñas in 2006." I take it that the subject was alive in the early 1800s, but this sketch was done in ~2006. I don't know if the uploader just scanned it or actually did the sketch. At the time I tagged it there was no OTRS, so Ezarate probably has more info. --99of9 (talk) 00:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket said that the uploader did the portrait, and if there isn't evidence that is a copyvio there isn't reason for doubt --Ezarateesteban 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Ok, that's enough for me. --99of9 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- The OTRS ticket said that the uploader did the portrait, and if there isn't evidence that is a copyvio there isn't reason for doubt --Ezarateesteban 01:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS ticket. Green Giant (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
- As well as File:Womens memorial march.jpg
Files were speedy deleted and then restored in relation to discussion at User_talk:~riley#Womens memorial march, while it is quite evident the author is Chris Bizzy, the source results in a 404 error and the license cannot be verified. ~riley (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep I agree that the licensed cannot be directly verified anymore, and unfortunately Commons didn't verify the source link while it was still active. As I noted on ~riley's Talk page, there's strong evidence that a Chris Bizzy operated the "nofutureface" Flickr account, licensed many pictures under CC, and took pictures from this event and neighbourhood. IMHO, this evidence makes the uploader's description credible. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Flickr accounts can be permanently deleted for copyright violations. Regardless of what happened to the account, the flickr account is non-existent so we cannot verify the license. My concerns fall under the COM:PRP, we cannot assume that the license is valid or that the account and it's contents itself was valid. ~riley (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete. The file never reviewed by humen or automaticlly. The account was down. The file can be found elswere. -- Geagea (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Geagea. We have a verification method but the onus for initiating a review is on the uploader or other editors wishing to keep the image. The suggestion of accepting that there might have been a possible operators is not a viable one. Green Giant (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Supposed, this is a pic of plan into airport, i.e. copiright violation. Odessey (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. We need permission from the architect through COM:OTRS before this can be hosted here. Green Giant (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MRPROMYK81 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Questionable authorship claims. These all appear to be depictions of pre-existing works.
- File:Władca Wszechświata.jpg
- File:Samochodzik. 001.jpg
- File:Samochodzik. 002.jpg
- File:Samochodzik. 003.jpg
—LX (talk, contribs) 10:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The National Museum of American History isn't a Federal institution, and the Smithsonian has claimed copyright over this image on their website. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see a copyright notice on the source page. Also, at permitted uses: "Smithsonian allows personal, educational, and other non-commercial uses of the Content on the following terms: ...". This is a historic photo that can't be reproduced. It is the only color photo of that computer that I can remember seeing, and it is the most detailed. It can't be reproduced because the Smuthsonian says that it is "not on view". Bubba73 (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Have a look at the terms of use at the bottom of the source page; it explicitly states that "You may not use the Content for commercial purposes", a key requirement for an image being on the Commons. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't think that Wikimedia was a commercial purpose. Bubba73 (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm afraid so; Commons:Licensing has further details. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then I've said all I will say.
It would be good to claim "fair use", but I'm not going through that process.Bubba73 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- OK, then I've said all I will say.
Deleted: per nomination. Please note that the image has to be free for any use including commercial ones but this does not mean that Commons is commercially-oriented. Also, it is very dubious when museums, libraries and art galleries claim copyright (usually because they confuse physically hosting a work with ownership of intellectual rights. Green Giant (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo of unidentified subjects with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Photo is realistic and have peronal consent!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beppef (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Realism is not the issue, and neither is consent. The issue is that it's not useful for educational purposes. Please read Commons:Project scope/Summary#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose and Commons:What Commons is not#Commons is not your personal free web host, and please stop uploading out of scope content. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Personal photos should generally be put on social media sites. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused low quality personal photo of unidentified subject with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 80.181.200.139 as Speedy (speedy delete) and the most recent rationale was: delete delegation request abusive fake author unregistered. I do not want to delete speedily, if nominator is anonymous. The file has been in Commons for 8 years. Taivo (talk) 07:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Taivo: as you can see it's a meaningless reason, given by a long-term abuser (namely Category:Sockpuppets of Fritella).You can find some more background here (with @Jcb: and @Amada44: involved) but also it happened to me in the past. Basically this brainless vandal targets anyone catching him. Honestly I cannot understand how is possible to speedy (or DR) uploads with such a ridiculously meaningless reason as delete delegation request abusive fake author unregistered. I'm so sick and tired of having to re-explain this all the time and I think I'll give up. Let's delete all my uploads, I'll go on fighting this silly vandal the same, obviously losing any confidence in most of Commons admins. --Vituzzu (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Bad faith LTA nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 13:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Unusably blurry. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 11:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Actually I just transferred it on the Commons in order to help the original uploader. Honestly I don't care about this upload, I just cannot accept it to be deleted upon a brainless vandal's request. Since this is not the case I'll leave the decision to the community. --Vituzzu (talk) 15:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: Too low quality, but uploaded in 2008 and already survived a DR. --Amitie 10g (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wait, what? I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all. The upload date doesn't make it any more usable for educational purposes, and the previous deletion nomination was made by a block-evading vandal on nonsensical grounds that were, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to project scope. Dismissing that vandal was the right thing to do, but it shouldn't have any bearing whatsoever on a discussion that's actually based on policy. —LX (talk, contribs) 18:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I do not see educational value. Place is unidentified, description is actually missiong. I cannot imagine, how the file can be used. Taivo (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and Taivo. Green Giant (talk) 11:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Is a scan of a newspaper photo, not "own work". Rrburke (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Scan of a book page, not "own work". Rrburke (talk) 11:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Uploader needs to provide evidence of permission from the author/publisher or that the work is in the public domain. Green Giant (talk) 11:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
The route map is created by Ahenty Zmin organisation, not by the user.
- File:Kyiv metromap green line.png
- File:Kyiv metromap blue line.png
- File:Kyiv metromap red line.png
- File:Kyiv rapid transit map .png
Base (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:01, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Too dark to be useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope. ★ Poké95 01:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Not an "own work made in 2016" - the uploader is 15 years old and the person on photo died in 1988. By cut corner of a photo - likely to be a scaled up passport photo made in 1970s. Tatewaki (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing/inconsistent EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Jusipher. Uploaded in a row on 07./08.05.2016 for en:IDEA Public Schools (9 uploads, 4 copyvios)
- File:Idea-alamo-eighth-grade-teachers.png
- File:Idea-alamo-students-playing-sports.jpg
- File:Idea-alamo-students-at-dance.jpg
- File:Idea-alamo-night-campus-photo.jpg
- File:Idea-alamo-night-campus.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 04:56, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:College-signing-day-2016-event.jpg (1438×1080) --> grabbed from (example) https://twitter.com/davidtheadmiral/status/725714152744841216 (04.2016)
- File:High-school-cheerleader-athletes.jpg (2557×1034)
- File:IDEA-Alamo-front-campus.jpg (881×510)
- Delete all. I add for deletion his/her recent uploads, all without camera data. Taivo (talk) 11:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination including the ones added by Taivo. Green Giant (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fannach abdslam (talk · contribs)
[edit]unused personal images : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
copyvio, cf watermark; not own work Pippobuono (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 11:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright 2012 Chucklefish LTD 
Remux - Nunca Olvidaré, que me enamoré de la más hermosa flor. Ĉu mi povas helpi vin iel? 22:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 12:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Uploader request, he says they are duplicates.
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (17).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (16).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (15).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (14).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (13).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (12).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (11).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (10).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (09).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (08).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (07).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (06).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (05).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (04).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (03).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US (02).jpg
- File:House on Kensington Drive in Savannah, GA, US.jpg
Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
See https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Help_desk&oldid=195412807#Delete_wrong_files_uploaded for uploader request. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- They are duplicates of ones I uploaded earlier and the names, descriptions and categories are wrong. I chose the wrong folder in Vicuna Uploader. Bubba73 (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted, Bubba nominated all files for speedy deletion. They were eligible for speedy as uploader's request on uploading week. Taivo (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the incorrect files have been deleted. I will be uploading correct files with those names, so don't delete them. Bubba73 (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Artsupawatt (talk · contribs)
[edit]Apparently photos of a Thai celebrity, one is used on [2]. The uploader is claiming to be the same person (which can't be verified). Some of the photos can be found elsewhere on the web without a free license. In others it's not clear who the photographer is, so the licenses may not be valid.
- File:UncleJohnGOLDX.jpg
- File:BWartpongNokCHan.jpeg
- File:ArtPongYoungB&W.jpeg
- File:Greatauntsonstairs.jpeg
- File:Artbluesweatyoung.jpeg
- File:Artpualiner2.jpg
- File:Artprofilerussia.jpg
- File:CropSwisslake.jpg
- File:Russiawithlove.jpg
- File:Outattapaz.jpg
- File:Artakbestcrop.jpeg
- File:Swisslake.jpg
- File:TravelinSpain.jpg
- File:Artsupawattface.jpg
--ghouston (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Photographers must follow the instructions on COM:OTRS to confirm the licenses of these files. --Storkk (talk) 08:50, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
In the past, I uploaded Dictionarium Anamitico-Latinum with the wrong name Dictionarium Latino-Anamiticum.pdf. Now, it should be deleted to upload a true Dictionarium Latino-Anamiticum. LMQ2401 (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 09:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Collection of historic and official photos, logos. Now evidence of permission(s) or indication of public domain.
- File:Uniformes UTFSM.jpg
- File:Estandarte UTFSM.jpg
- File:Escudo UTFSM1.jpg
- File:Abanderados UTFSM.jpg
- File:Himno de la Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria.ogg
- File:John Sterman 2013.png
- File:Coro UTFSM 2015.jpg
- File:Coro UTFSM 2003.JPG
- File:Coro USM 1956.jpg
- File:Coro UTFSM 4.png
- File:Coro UTFSM 2.png
- File:Coro UTFSM 1.png
- File:Coro UTFSM 3.png
- File:Alimapu 2014.jpg
- File:Coro UTFSM Ecuador.png
- File:Coro2011.jpg
- File:Coro UTFSM.jpg
- File:Corousm oldies.jpg
- File:Agustin Edwards Budge.jpg
- File:Roberto-medina.jpg
- File:Gustavo Chiang.jpg
- File:Francisco Cereceda.jpg
- File:Arturo Nino de zepeda scheele.jpg
- File:Wilhelm Feick.jpg
- File:Darcy Fuenzalida.png
- File:Jose Rodriguez USM.JPG
- File:Pesce-Giovanni-e1443112582490-300x300.jpg
- File:Ismael Huerta Diaz.jpeg
- File:Carlos Cerutti Galdeazabal.jpg
- File:Adolfo Arata.jpg
- File:Armando quezada.jpg
- File:Gustavo-chiang-300x242.jpg
- File:Jaime Chiang-500x666.jpg
- File:Domingo Santa María-500x666.jpg
- File:75-Yrs-800.jpg
- File:50-Yrs-800.jpg
- File:Logo mec.jpg
- File:Map usm.jpg
- File:Logo-red.png
- File:Mobile-header-usm.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 09:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Trzęsacz as duplicate (dup) and the most recent rationale was: licate|Karl Christian Aubel - Portrait Gustav Adolf Michaelis.jpg Wdwd (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, it is a duplicate of File:Karl Christian Aubel - Portrait Gustav Adolf Michaelis.jpg. It's the same auction photo, only with watermarks lower right (a zoom button). I do not understand why you initiate this silly deletion discussion. --Trzęsacz (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- This file was tagged as duplicate and PNG and JPG file formats are not the same. Discussion was started because of Commons:Deletion_policy#Duplicates. Please do not tag different file formats as duplicate.--Wdwd (talk) 04:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. A higher resolution PNG would be preferable, but this is lower resolution and has an overlay. --Storkk (talk) 09:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
suspect that the image is downloaded, not the person's own work Zoizit (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- +1. This is cut out of https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/9b/2f/62/9b2f62994288946e0e59e5eb055075ea.jpg This exact cut can be found on many sites using, for example, Google Images. --Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, likely copyright violation. Original photographer should contact COM:OTRS to confirm license. --Storkk (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by K.niharika as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: remove history account created without permission ~riley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: likely copyright violation. Photographer should contact COM:OTRS to confirm license. --Storkk (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Stang as Speedy (QD) and the most recent rationale was: Author requested. Speedy under the "Author requests deletion" clause only applies to 7 days within upload. ~riley (talk) 19:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Derivative of medal with no indication that the underlying medal is public domain. Also at request of uploader, and file is unused. --Storkk (talk) 09:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Depicted person is not mentioned in ru.wiki. I am not sure in orthography, therefore i did not search in en.wiki. Small photo without metadata, so in addition to scope problem there is also copyright problem: maybe not own work as claimed. Taivo (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Storkk (talk) 09:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of project scope, the user's last remaining upload. Taivo (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Fma12 as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Above the TOO - see logo at club website.. Looks below COM:TOO to me. ~riley (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Club Cipolletti.jpg as well. ~riley (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Some details of the Cipolletti logo (such as the laurel wreath) make it copyrightable IMO. Moreover, several versions of the Argentine Association logo have been repeatedly deleted for the same reason (such as examples: [1], [2], [3], [4]) - Fma12 (talk) 23:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: seems above TOO. --Jcb (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Unused logo of unclear notability. Out of project scope. See also de:Wikipedia:Löschkandidaten/10. November 2010#Railtrade (schnellgelöscht). Stefan2 (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS pendung since 2010. --JuTa 16:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent (Facebook) resolutions, missing EXIF. Probadly grabbed from Facebook considering exif: FBMD01000a860d0000b94a000090790000e77e00005d840000d395000008d50000d8e90000def0000035fb000000a60100.--Liji (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, photographer should confirm license via COM:OTRS. --Storkk (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
which are all coins tagged with {{Money-EU}} that is only for banknotes, see the template itself and/or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 27#Euro coins blanket copyright violation. TherasTaneel (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- File:Germany 2009 100 euro Trier Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2009 100 euro Trier Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2009 10 euro Youth Hostels Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2008 100 euro Goslar Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2008 100 euro Goslar Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2007 10 euro Saarland Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Theory of relativity Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Schiller Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Schiller Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Magdeburg Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro FIFA 2006 obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro FIFA 2006 Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Bertha von Suttner Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2005 10 euro Bertha von Suttner Obverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2004 10 euro FIFA 2006 Reverse.jpg
- File:Germany 2003 10 euro FIFA 2006 Reverse.gif
- File:Germany 2003 10 euro FIFA 2006 Obverse.gif
Deleted: Euro coins are non free. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
According to the watermark the file is from bluddi.com. Permission needed.
-- Geagea (talk) 21:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
No indication of user's own work Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Amirphosseini (talk · contribs)
[edit]Portraits of the user which are obviously not selfies, yet uploaded as own work. Permission via COM:OTRS from the actual photographers would be needed to retain the images.
- File:Amir parvin hosseini -fajr 2.jpg
- File:Amir parvin hosseini -fajr.jpg
- File:Amir parvin hosseini z امیر پروین حسینی.JPG
- File:Amir parvin hosseini -s امیر پروین حسینی.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Frances Benjamin Johnston, full-length portrait, seated in front of fireplace, 1896 (altered).jpg
[edit]Heavily degraded version of File:Frances_Benjamin_Johnston,_full-length_portrait,_seated_in_front_of_fireplace,_1896.jpg with very heavy JPEG artefacting. Now that we have better, I can't see any reason to keep this, as useful as it may have been at the time. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- There's no need to for you to be snarky and insulting. For over 10 years, the original file was not too useful for article use, due to being much too dark, then due to being surrounded by a bizarre color border. The situation only changed two days ago. Your requests would be more likely to viewed as reasonable if you could skip the display of arrogant attitude (especially since some of your past "restoration" efforts were problematic). AnonMoos (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- @AnonMoos: I... really didn't intend that to come off as insulting. I even said it was useful at the time, but we now have better. It's certainly better than the older version of the original image, but, like that image, there's huge amounts of JPEG artefacting, especially in the dark areas - the image wasn't degradedby yourwork, it was justa very degraded copy that you had to work fromAdam Cuerden (talk) 03:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, nominated version brings nothing special. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation Hugopako (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unlikely to be own work. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Blurry photo of rocks. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to be out of scope? (Je me trompe, ou il n'y a rien d'importance dans ce photo?) Themightyquill (talk) 07:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: I think this is an attempt of artistic photograph, no matter if successfull or not, uploaded to the competition wiki love earth, for my part I will not delete this photo for this rationale, until the results are not established. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
File:Jbel Hdid Essaouira.jpg Youssefbidak (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Nominator is also the uploader, I believe. Themightyquill (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - photo has been on Commons for nearly 5 years; uploading user deletion requests usually only granted if upload is fairly recent or obviously personally sensitive. Whether an attempt at an artistic photo or not, this pic has potential use in articles about geology; a good geologist may well be able to identify the mineral (my amateur suspicion is limestone), and erosion processes affecting it - MPF (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Strakhov (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The image looks photoshopped to the naive eye. We have many other (and better) images of the eminent personality but this one seems out of a personal album. Out of project scope. Rahul Bott (talk) 08:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, it looks photoshopped, that makes the copyright statut unclear. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bert Hogemans (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Bert Hogemans (with similar uploads deleted). Per FBMD... probadly grabbed from Facebook.
- File:Drumfanfare Michaël met tamboer-maître Roland Combé..jpg
- File:Dodenmars 4 mei.jpg
- File:Streetparade Taptoe Roermond.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment Bert: I must say you are all seriously vigilant, although I am not always sure what the content of your comments actually means. It would sure be nice to be able to communicate directly with a single contact. I feel pretty battered with 5 individuals anonimously ruling over my actions without knowing even 1 of them, let alone being able (through sheer incompetence on my side, I must add) to understand most of what is being said.
I am currently safeguarding consent for previous (deleted) pictures, the ignorantly publishing on wiki of which I am truly sorry for. I will refrain from uploading any further images without explicit consent (through https://tools.wmflabs.org/relgen/) from their creators. All the images I published have been done so with consent, allbeit not formally deposited. The current uploads, as the previous ones, were taken from a Facebook page containing private (group-)content about Drumfanfare Michaël (mainly pictures).
To be sure: will uploading jpg originals (from the camera, so to speak) resolve this issue? I.e.: if the creator(s) of these images upload them themselves, will that resolve the issue? Or will they still need to release them?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bert Hogemans (talk • contribs)
- Hi! "I.e.: if the creator(s) of these images upload them themselves, will that resolve the issue?" Yes, preferably in highest resolution available (with consistent metadata from the used digicam). Gunnex (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Too blurry to be realistically useful for educational purposes. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Copyright violation from Exame magazine. André Koehne TALK TO ME 12:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely own work. -- Geagea (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolution, missing EXIF. Per FBMD01000a9c0d0000f42e0000e850000057580000cf5e00002f6e0000f9970000449f000024a80000a3b000004afb0000 grabbed from Facebook. Gunnex (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
falsche Datei Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file; deletion requested by uploader. —howcheng {chat} 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
falsche Datei Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file; deletion requested by uploader. —howcheng {chat} 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
falsche Datei Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file; deletion requested by uploader. —howcheng {chat} 16:03, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
falsche Datei Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 17:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused file; deletion requested by uploader. —howcheng {chat} 16:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
duplicate https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9F%D0%A5%D0%94_%D0%B2_1996_%28%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8_1997%29_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83.jpg Ritarisk (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 16:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
duplicate https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:%D0%9F%D0%A5%D0%94_%D0%B2_1996_%28%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8_1997%29_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83.jpg Ritarisk (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: This one is in use. Deleted the unused File:ПХД в 1996 (или 1997) году.jpg instead. —howcheng {chat} 16:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
duplicate https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Samarqand_districts.png Ritarisk (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. —howcheng {chat} 16:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Replaced by better version HernandezPhoto (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: Unused image; deletion requested by uploader. —howcheng {chat} 17:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Problematic image from blocked editor 82.81.93.141 12:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: explanation why this file would be problematic is missing - in use. --Jcb (talk) 16:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
File:4990010016736 - Bankim Chandrer Granthaboli Part.9, Chattopadhyay, Bankim Chandra, 192p, LANGUAGE. LINGUISTICS. LITERATURE, sanskrit (1880).pdf
[edit]Duplicate of File:বঙ্কিমচন্দ্রের গ্রন্থাবলী (নবম ভাগ).djvu Hrishikes (talk) 06:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Comment Not exactly, this file has a bit bigger resolution. Taivo (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is a book, not an image. Content is same. Source file is also same. Original hard copy is also same, from Dafarpur Ramakrishna Library, Howrah, West Bengal. Scanned at Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-Dac), Kolkata, digital publication date 2010/04/28. (see here for West Bengal Public Library Network and here for Digital Library of India). Hrishikes (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Please dont delete this file just because of duplicate of another. I have a plan to upload from DLI with bar code ( about 15000+ pdf books in Bengali language). so I can check that whether file was uploaded or not. After uploading all, I shall recheck all for duplicate issue. Jayantanth (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
No source or copyright details for original image. --ghouston (talk) 08:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Hello! This file was uploaded for the creating of the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wang_Yurong_Jr.
- It is a snapshot of the original photo, currently in the possession of Ms. Wang Yurong herself. The photo was taken about 60 years ago when she was young, and she could not recall the name of the shop where it was taken and the name of the photographer.
- Please advise if the above information is sufficient and any other info needed to keep the image. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huiliwang (talk • contribs)
- Thanks @Huiliwang: , the problem is that Commons requires either a license from the copyright holder, or showing that the file is in the public domain. In this case, the copyright holder would probably be the photographer, so it's impossible to get a license. I think for an unpublished anonymous work, the US copyright will expire 120 years after the photo was taken, so it won't be public domain for a long time. --ghouston (talk) 11:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
higher quality svg and png available https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.svg Qubodup (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Uploaded as "Eget arbete", but seems to be taken from some sort of promotion material. abbedabbtalk 08:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
motivo — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeremyM454 (talk • contribs) 2016-05-07T02:40:23 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not an Anguis fragilis as the user tried to suggest and even introduced this picture in the ro.wikipedia's article. Wintereu 17:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This is not an Anguis fragilis as the user tried to suggest and even introduced this picture in the ro.wikipedia's article. Wintereu 17:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Secondarywaltz as Speedy (Speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Family picture. Commons is not your personal free web host.It is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong author, Gabriel Olsen is not Ala1303 unil proven otherwise. Is http://www.gettyimages.fr/license/475377600 licence compatible with Commons? Lacrymocéphale (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, the uploader has problems with copyright. I suspect copyvio here also. Taivo (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
not own work Triplecaña (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I find no evidence that this article is openly licensed (neither for the claimed CC BY-SA nor for any other Commons-compliant license). Daniel Mietchen (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
non pd logo used by enwp spammer Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
- This is textlogo and so ineligible for copyright, but maybe out of our project scope? Taivo (talk) 09:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep as PD-textlogo or delete anything else, too, in Category:YouTube logos. De728631 (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: incorrect attribution (source, author), and not in use, thousands of logos like this. --Basvb (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Not own work, no author or copyright information. --ghouston (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Can be free from copyright, but evidence is needed, that it is published more than 60 years ago. Taivo (talk) 21:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: We need evidence of permission and proper licensing. --Basvb (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:Arms of Prince Oscar Bernadotte SVG.svg. Elzo 90 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I fail to see how this file is going to be used. --Basvb (talk) 20:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:Arms of Prince Oscar Bernadotte SVG.svg. Elzo 90 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:Arms of Prince Oscar Bernadotte SVG.svg. Elzo 90 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
See File talk:Arms of Prince Oscar Bernadotte SVG.svg. Elzo 90 (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Basvb (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho rather 'professional-looking' format, but/and missing EXIF data, Roland zh (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: large size, author could've removed exif for some reason, no external sources found. --Basvb (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
This coat of arms has errors: instead of a ciborium must have a heraldic rook. The right image is File:Escudo de Albatera (Alicante).svg (.svg){kind=small}
).
El escudo que se muestra no es el oficial de Albatera, no coincidiendo alguno de sus elementos con los del escudo oficial perteneciente al Ayuntamiento. La aparición de este escudo en la red induce al error y hace que cualquier empresa, ajena al ayuntamiento o a la localidad, o no, pueda utilizar este escudo no representativo creyendo que es el correcto. Macondo (talk) 08:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep If it's wrong, you can fix it. Feel free to tag with the Template:Disputed coat of arms template.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per comment by Asqueladd. Green Giant (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This coat of arms has errors. The right image is File:Escudo de Beniarrés.svg (
)
El escudo que se muestra no es el oficial de Beniarrés, no coincidiendo ninguno de sus elementos con los del escudo oficial perteneciente al Ayuntamiento. La aparición de este escudo en la red induce al error y hace que cualquier empresa, ajena al ayuntamiento o a la localidad, o no, pueda utilizar este escudo no representativo creyendo que es el correcto. Macondo (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep If it's wrong you can fix it.--Asqueladd (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per comment by Asqueladd. Green Giant (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This coat of arms has errors. The right image is File:Escudo de Beniarrés.svg ().
El escudo que se muestra no es el oficial de Beniarrés, no coincidiendo ninguno de sus elementos con los del escudo oficial perteneciente al Ayuntamiento. La aparición de este escudo en la red induce al error y hace que cualquier empresa, ajena al ayuntamiento o a la localidad, o no, pueda utilizar este escudo no representativo creyendo que es el correcto. Macondo (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: If you think it's wrong, please tag the file with {{Disputed coat of arms}}. Green Giant (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Este escudo que ha sido montado en Wikimedia, no es la creación original del Autor, por lo que solicito sea eliminado y reemplazado por el original, ya que está generando dificultades con proveedores del Municipio San Juan de Urabá por usar esta versión que ha sido creada sin cumplir con lo creado por el autor.
Kept: If you think it's wrong, please tag the file with {{Disputed coat of arms}}. Green Giant (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
All instances replaced with SVG version, this raster is not in use anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balu.ertl (talk • contribs) 2016-05-07T17:00:58 (UTC)
- Is the original design of this flag by Vander01, the uploader of the png-file? Because you do not attribute him in your derivative of the file and as such your work could strictly be seen as a violation if Vander01 is the orginal designer (even if below TOO). For that reason against deletion currently as it makes you seem to be the only author. Basvb (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Kept: Per comment by Basvb. Green Giant (talk) 17:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Мико as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: copied from here [3]. Obviousely a new icon, not a 19 Century one as stated. Achim (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Keep: Image is in use on 8 wiki projects. There is no evidence that a modern copy is depicted there. Some more info: The original link http://ugcc.org.ua/949.98.html?&L=2 doesn't work any longer, even archive.org doesn't keep it. The image is not copied from the guessed site http://www.saint.gr/2922/saint.aspx. Page http://politistiko-ergasthri-nostos.blogspot.de/2012/10/blog-post_3391.html shows that icon likely as a scan from a book so we can assume the original one being depicted there. Therefore sites like [4] or [5] seem to show no modern copies as well. I'm going to replace the DRd image by http://diakonima.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/06.jpg as it is the highest resolution image I found on the web. --Achim (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Edit: I just noticed that sr:Датотека:PavleCarigradski1.jpg is an interesting scan of the same icon which could be moved to Commons. --Achim (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- The argument that the file is used in 8 projects means nothing. There is no proof whatsoever for teh 19 Century dating - the style of the icon is modern. --Мико (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with Мико this appears modern and I'd guess from the 1970s at the earliest. Absent any information about its provenance, I seen no reason to believe the 19th Century date, which seems extremely unlikely. Storkk (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter, it can be seen on OrthodoxWiki. Has anyone an idea of the location of the original icon? I didn't find any info. --Achim (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- [6] there is an impressive number of result with google prior to November 4, 2012, the date of publication on OrthodoxWiki. Hard to find the source and I did not find any relevant infos on the source of the icon image by reading some websites. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
repoduction d'une oeuvre non libre : attribution "travail personnel" incorrecte et aucune trace formelle de " l'aimable autorisation de la Curtney Jacobs Collection, USA" Habertix (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Bonjour, il y a en effet une erreur car ce n'est bien sûr pas mon oeuvre, comme la notice l'explique. Cependant, j'ai obtenu l'autorisation de l'artiste qui la détient de la mettre en ligne sur wikipedia. Je peux produire l'email de confirmation si nécessaire et il est possible de lui poser la question en direct si nécessaire. Crdlmt, OJC Olcoispeau (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Est-ce que l'artiste (ou son ayant-droit) accepte la réutilisation commerciale ?
- Les restrictions possibles par rapport à une réutilisation totalement libre sont dans ce tableau dont je n'ai pas trouvé de version en français. -- Habertix (talk) 19:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
- OTRS-permission is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Please ask the copyright holder to send a license statement about this file to Wikimedia after reading COM:OTRS and COM:ET. Green Giant (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
unneccessary gallery, two bad photos from the same event SamWinchester000 (talk) 19:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Green Giant (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This photograph has been associated often the Cantonal Revolution of 1873-4, but it can be seen boater hats type (which became popular in the 1920s), and it is found that the troops enter the city without crossing one of the monumental doors in 1874 had Cartagena (were demolished between 1902 and 1916). In this situation, we can not guarantee that the photograph is in the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by P4K1T0 (talk • contribs) 2016-04-30T18:19:20 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The bottom suggest that has been taken from a website. Its not an SVG free like are the creations of coats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosVdeHabsburgo (talk • contribs) 2016-04-30T20:51:19 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
superceded by an updated logo version which is also in SVG format — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngelHerraez (talk • contribs) 2016-05-05T20:22:58 (UTC)
Kept: not duplicates. --Jcb (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Bad file. Empty Konto na chwilę (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Not broken but with embedded raster. --Amitie 10g (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: the embedded raster makes usage in a Wikipedia article impossible. --Jcb (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Unused doodle art by non-notable artists. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep It's not "doodle art", it's a Polandball comic, which in itself notable (present on 99 projects as per http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q88870). By their very nature Polandball comics are drawn by "non-notable" individuals. This particular work could be used not only on Wikimedia projects, but also externally, to illustrate issues such as Russia–European Union relations, Russian subsidies of Eastern European EU nations (think Gazprom), etc, etc. This is even more possible if it is to be a satirical look at such issues. There's no valid reason for deletion here. 177.66.105.162 19:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This comic is actually based on a real notable news, and Polandball is notable too. So, it is in our project's scope. --★ Poké95 01:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- DeleteNot encyclopedic, out of scope. In my view, all Polandball comics are.--Desyman (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Desyman, they don't need to be encyclopaedic. They only need to be able to be used for an "educational purpose". In this case, political satire is well within scope. XR728 (talk) 22:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: no educational value. --Jcb (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
No source given in the scanned book, so no way to determine publication date and place, if any.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no indication that the license would not apply. --Jcb (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a work by an author who died in 1954; it is thus in copyright in Russia. According to the template, film published between 1929-1946 are out of copyright, but not film published in 1925, which is life of author + 70. (nominating talk page because file page is currently protected.) Prosfilaes 22:11, 8 May 2016 (UTC)--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep The film was published in 1925 by Kul'tkino [7], Goskino documentary section [8], whose patrimonial rights were confirmed by art. 5 of the Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006, amended by Federal Law No. 296-FZ of December 30, 2008, with a term of 50 years from publication for the authors, as such term predated 1993 and a maximum term of 70 years from publication for the studio per art. 6 of the same law (referred to in {{PD-Russia-2008}}) [9]. For URAA's sake, PD in Russia on Jan 1, 1996. — Racconish ☎ 09:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC) corrected on 18:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- It has no valid license tag. The tag on there right now is quite clear; cinema films first shown before January 1, 1929 are subjects of points 1 and 2 of this template, which is life+70. If it's wrong, then let's fix that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the template is confusing. Let me try to clarify the situation. Russia inheritated the Soviet copyright approach concerning films. In Soviet Russia, the copyright to the film belonged to the studio (art. 486 Civil code RSFSR [10]). In practical terms, Vertov's own copyright as director, initially set to 10 years from the first publication [11] [12], was "fobbed off" (per Michiel Elst"s terms in Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, p. 409) by later laws which assigned film copyright to the studio. In others words, the copyright on the film as a whole was owned by the studio, Kul'tkino, while individual contributors to the film, such as "the author of the script, the composer, director, chief cameraman, artistic director, and the authors of other works which constitute a component part... own the copyright in each of their works" (Jove v. Berov [13]), i.e. for a separate and distinct use. The copyright law of 1993 confirmed the studios were the copyright owners for the films, with a term of 50 years from publication (Elst, p.529). The decree of May 1998 clarified the studios were only "legal right holders of the cinematographic work" and confirmed the term of 50 years from publication (Elst 531-532), which was again confirmed with a maximum as 50 years from publication for the authors, if this term predates 1993, and 70 years from publication for the studios by the Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006 referred to above, with the following provision : "The copyright of legal entities which has arisen before August 3, 1993, that is, before the entry into force of Law of the Russian Federation No. 5351-I of July 9, 1993 on the Copyright and the Adjacent Rights, shall be terminated after the expiry of seventy years as from the day of the legally justified publication of the work... For the purposes of their application, such legal entities shall be seen as the authors of the works." — Racconish ☎ 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Alex Spade: could you please give your opinion on this and on the wording of the template ? In particular the legal basis for "Cinema films first shown before January 1, 1929 are subjects of points 1 and 2 of this template".— Racconish ☎ 18:00, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Studios had become authors of non-amateur films since Jan.1, 1929 (see s:ru:Постановление ВЦИК и СНК РСФСР от 8.10.1928 об авторском праве) only. Previous legislation have not such regulation. Alex Spade (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- Alex Spade, thank you for explaining your point of view. Your comment that "previous legislation have not such regulation" requires some discussion. Prior situation cannot be described as the assignment of copyright to the authors, in the sense of the current Russian copyright law instead of the studios, as you seem to imply. In Soviet Russia prior to the 1925 copyright law there was no provision for copyright on films, in a context of nationalization of the film production by Lenin's decree of August 27, 1919 and further expropriation of assets, creation of Goskino and state control of film distribution. Movies, in particular propaganda movies like this one, were produced following Government's orders and financed by Government's budget. According to Michiel Elst, "films were for the first time mentioned as subject matter of copyright" in the Fundamentals of Copyright Law of January 30, 1925 (Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation, p.75). Yet, art. 2 of these Fundamentals referred only to scripts of cinematographic works having the characteristics of an independant work. In any case the 1925 copyright law postdates Leninskaya kino-pravda and the exception for an independant script would not have been applicable. As expressed by Dmitry Golovanov, the "point of departure" for the application of copyright to films in modern Russia was "the principle that legal entities were recognised as authors of cinematographic works" [14]. In any case, either we consider that cinematographic works created by Soviet governmental entities prior to the application of the 1928 copyright law are in the public domain, following Vladimir Entine for whom works which have not been granted protection have fallen in the public domain [15], or we consider that the later copyright laws apply retroactively, in which case this should be analysed as a synthetic work whose copyright belonged to the publishing studio, and has now fallen in the public domain since 70 years from the publication have elapsed, but there is no reason to assume a kind of personal copyright which never existed in Soviet Russia did exist before 1929. — Racconish ☎ 12:56, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
- Studios had become authors of non-amateur films since Jan.1, 1929 (see s:ru:Постановление ВЦИК и СНК РСФСР от 8.10.1928 об авторском праве) only. Previous legislation have not such regulation. Alex Spade (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
- It has no valid license tag. The tag on there right now is quite clear; cinema films first shown before January 1, 1929 are subjects of points 1 and 2 of this template, which is life+70. If it's wrong, then let's fix that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
- Due to retroacivity of Law-1993, Code-2006 and Berne Convention it is unimportant in what status work was on moment of puplication (copyrightable or not, object of copyright or not, PD or not). It is unimportant for copyright term - "who is copyright holder?", it is important - "who is author?". Law-1928 (and Code-1964) had changed authorship in the first place, then (right after that) copyright. Decretum-1919 had nationalized means of film production, material form of films, and income. Russian legislation (compare to US-legislation concerning Nazi copyright) did not and does not know about nationalization or seizure of initial author copyrights (it knows about nationalization/seizure of income from copyrights, nationalization/seizure of copyrights delivered to (inherited by) other person or legal entity, and nationalization/seizure of copyrights of legal entity even if it is initial author by law). Moreover in Russian nationalization/seizure changes copyright holder (rights pass to state/government), it does not move work to PD-zone. Russian copyright legislation recognizes initial author copyrights of legal entity only if possibility for initial authorship of legal entity has clearly indicated in law (internal or foreign, based on country of origin).
P.S. I did not say or presumed, who is copyright holder of pre-1929-film - as I have said, that is unimportant for copyright term. I did not say or presumed that author of pre-1929-film defined by article 1263 of Code-2006; I presumed that pre-1929-film is work by natural person or group of natural persons created (созданное творческим трудом) this film. For example, Mosfilm is copyright holder of its films since 1924 (by old contracts with initial authors) and since 1929 (as initial author by law). Alex Spade (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)- First, we cannot say the Bern Convention applies retroactively in Russia. The Russian Government has expressly clarified the opposite when entering the Convention : see Decree No. 1224 of November 3, 1994 and Berne Notification No. 162. Second, we cannot say "it is unimportant in what status work was on moment of publication". Article 5 of Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006 says the opposite : "The author of a work or another initial right holder shall be identified in conformity with the legislation operating as at the moment of creating the work". As I said, prior to the 1928 copyright law which assigned film copyright to studios, there was no recognition of copyright on films made in Soviet Russia, hence no initial copyright holder, in a context where this was a non-issue, as the cinema industry had been nationalised. Third, it is quite ironical (or maybe simply anachronical) to have such a discussion about Dziga Vertov who advocated the use of documentary for Bolshevik propaganda and claimed the exact opposite of personal authorship, the collective and participative nature of the "Cine Eyes" (kinoks) producing the Kino-Pravda and beeing collectively the authors-creators of their film-objects. In Vertov's own words :
The Goskino kinoks’ cell should be regarded as one of the factories in which the raw material supplied by kinok-observers is made into film-objects. The Goskino kinoks’ cell should also be regarded as an educational, modelworkshop through which young Pioneer and Komsomol film groups will be drawn into production work. Specifically, all groups of kinok-observers will be drawn into the production of future kino-eye series. They will be the author-creators of all subsequent film-objects. This departure from authorship by one person or a group of persons to mass authorship will, in our view, accelerate the destruction of bourgeois, artistic cinema and its attributes: the poser-actor, fairy-tale script, those costly toys–sets, and the director-high priest.
— Dziga Vertov, Kino-Eye, quoted by MacKay [16]
- First, we cannot say the Bern Convention applies retroactively in Russia. The Russian Government has expressly clarified the opposite when entering the Convention : see Decree No. 1224 of November 3, 1994 and Berne Notification No. 162. Second, we cannot say "it is unimportant in what status work was on moment of publication". Article 5 of Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006 says the opposite : "The author of a work or another initial right holder shall be identified in conformity with the legislation operating as at the moment of creating the work". As I said, prior to the 1928 copyright law which assigned film copyright to studios, there was no recognition of copyright on films made in Soviet Russia, hence no initial copyright holder, in a context where this was a non-issue, as the cinema industry had been nationalised. Third, it is quite ironical (or maybe simply anachronical) to have such a discussion about Dziga Vertov who advocated the use of documentary for Bolshevik propaganda and claimed the exact opposite of personal authorship, the collective and participative nature of the "Cine Eyes" (kinoks) producing the Kino-Pravda and beeing collectively the authors-creators of their film-objects. In Vertov's own words :
- Due to retroacivity of Law-1993, Code-2006 and Berne Convention it is unimportant in what status work was on moment of puplication (copyrightable or not, object of copyright or not, PD or not). It is unimportant for copyright term - "who is copyright holder?", it is important - "who is author?". Law-1928 (and Code-1964) had changed authorship in the first place, then (right after that) copyright. Decretum-1919 had nationalized means of film production, material form of films, and income. Russian legislation (compare to US-legislation concerning Nazi copyright) did not and does not know about nationalization or seizure of initial author copyrights (it knows about nationalization/seizure of income from copyrights, nationalization/seizure of copyrights delivered to (inherited by) other person or legal entity, and nationalization/seizure of copyrights of legal entity even if it is initial author by law). Moreover in Russian nationalization/seizure changes copyright holder (rights pass to state/government), it does not move work to PD-zone. Russian copyright legislation recognizes initial author copyrights of legal entity only if possibility for initial authorship of legal entity has clearly indicated in law (internal or foreign, based on country of origin).
- Law-1993 and Code-2006 were and are retroactive by theirself for works published in Russia or by Russian citizens (this retroactivity was confirm by the Supreme Court and Supreme Arbitration Court). And, your knowledge RF-reservation for Berne Convention (made de-facto only for works published outside Russia by foreigners) are outdated - it had been recalled in December 2012.
Films are clearly mentioned by Soviet Copyright Law 1925. Moreover, lack of direct mention for concrete kind/type of work in copyrightable section of law is not problem for copyrightability - the foundation for copyrightability (confirmed by the Supreme Court and Supreme Arbitration Court) is creativity (by human, not animal or automatic machine) and originality. The Article 5 from Law 231-FZ assists only in identification of author and copyrightholder, it does not tie copyrightability to publication time. For example, in Code-1964 unsigned photoworks were uncopyrightable, but they are copyrightable in modern Russian copyright law - both old and modern ones.
And nationalization/seizure in RF/RSFSR is change of owner (from someone to state/government), not transition to PD-zone. Alex Spade (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)- Apologies for my mistake concerning the recent modification regarding the Berne convention. I still think we should leave aside the 1925 copyright law which is irrelevant. My understanding is that in all cases the current Russian copyright law considers the persons as the authors but acknowledges the fact that under the Soviet copyright law, the copyrights of films were all transferred to the studios, which became the copyright holders. Be it in 1928 or in 1964, the studio became the copyright holder for this film prior to 1993, which means article 6 of Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006 should be applied : "The copyright of legal entities which has arisen before August 3, 1993, that is, before the entry into force of Law of the Russian Federation No. 5351-I of July 9, 1993 on the Copyright and the Adjacent Rights, shall be terminated after the expiry of seventy years as from the day of the legally justified publication of the work [...] Towards the corresponding legal relations shall be applied by analogy the rules of Part Four of the Code. For the purposes of their application, such legal entities shall be seen as the authors of the works". — Racconish ☎ 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article 6 of Law 231-FZ (and similar article from previous Law-1993) says only about the initial copyright of legal entities as initial author by law (not just initial copyright holder by law), it is not about any copyright of legal entities and it is not even about the initial copyright of legal entities as employer (for work by hire) - these common misunderstandings/delusions of this article explains repeatedly in Russian jurist commentaries, supported by courts decision, because copyright terms depend on author data (author can be legal entity), not his employer or holder of his/its copyright. Moreover since Law-1928 (since Jan.1, 1929) studio had become author (again, not just initial copyright holder by law) for new films, not old ones. Alex Spade (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you see in this article 6 that it relates only to the initial copyright ? It says quite clearly "the copyright which has arisen before 1993". The new copyright law always considers the persons as the initial authors but recognizes the fact the copyright has been assigned to moral persons under Soviet law. — Racconish ☎ 21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Besides text article I have read Russian jurist commentaries, supported by courts decision about it. Similar problem we had many years ago with GSE and many Soviet posters. Alex Spade (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know better" is not the best of arguments here
. My understanding is Michiel Elst's Copyright, Freedom of Speech, and Cultural Policy in the Russian Federation is considered as a reliable source on the subject. He says clearly, in particular p. 586, that the physical persons are now considered as the original authors but they were assumed to have transferred their copyright to the producer who was the copyright holder as of 1993 if the work had not fallen in the public domain. — Racconish ☎ 21:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the cases I'm familiar with, whether or not the author has transferred their copyright to the producer, a life+n copyright duration is still based on the life of the author. Elst may say that clearly, but it's not clear that is relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- The best juridical commentaries (on my opinion) - why Article 6 of Law 231-FZ (and similar article from previous Law-1993) says only about the initial copyright of legal entities as authors, you can find in Gavroliv's (one of the lead Russian jurist about copyrights) commentaries to Law-1993 and Code-2006 (for example Gavrilov Eh.P., Moskva, Ekzamen, 2005, p.360-362 in the case of Law-1993 - the raw full text of his commentaries can be found here, see p.12-14 near the end of text - start with Russian phrase 12. Пункты 4 и 5 относятся к тем случаям). As I said, there had been similar problem with misunderstanding of direct reading of these articles in ru-wiki, en-wiki and commons had early with GSE, posters and many other works created by hire (служебная работа) or by contract (авторский договор), which copyrights also belong to legal entities but do not fall under Article 6. Alex Spade (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Let me quote also Golavanov, whose articles on the subject have been published by Iris, the WIPO publication. In "The Legal Status of the Producer of Audiovisual Works in the Russian Federation" published in 2009 he writes :
According to Soviet law, legal persons could be considered as original authors. This approach caused a number of problems concerning rights in films produced by Soviet studios. The Soviet studios were treated as holders of authors’ rights according to Article 486 of the Civil Code of [1964]. The authors’ rights of legal persons had an eternal term of protection (Article 498). The rights could be transferred by an agreement to a party or to the studio’s successor in the case of the motion picture producing studio being reorganised, or to the State if the studio was liquidated. Often, however,intellectual property rights had not been recorded on a company’s balance sheet of intangible assets. The reason for this was the fact that movies were produced on the basis of governmental orders and with State funding. Governmental authorities expected that they held all rights to the products of these studios, although according to the civil law they were not allowed to hold any proprietary (economic) rights (including intellectual property rights). Besides, according to the Civil Code 1964 a script writer, a composer, a director, a producer, a director of photography and other authors who contributed to the movie-making process had the rights to separate use of their works – that is, rights to use their parts of the whole product [...] In parallel to this development, the Government passed a number of resolutions through which all rights to movies and original copies of the works were transferred to the governmental archives organisations (foundations). At the same time, some authors who had participated in a movie-making process claimed to be the proper rightsholders. They referred to the Copyright Statute 1993 as the basis of their claim. Resultantly, a very tangled jurisprudence emerged. [...] In 2004 an amendment to the Copyright Statute 1993 was introduced, providing a limited term of protection of authors’ rights belonging to legal persons. Its duration is 70 years, starting from the date of publication of a work [...] The Consummation Statute of Part Four of the Civil Code confirmed this rule.
— Dmitry Golovanov [17]
- Let me quote also Golavanov, whose articles on the subject have been published by Iris, the WIPO publication. In "The Legal Status of the Producer of Audiovisual Works in the Russian Federation" published in 2009 he writes :
- The best juridical commentaries (on my opinion) - why Article 6 of Law 231-FZ (and similar article from previous Law-1993) says only about the initial copyright of legal entities as authors, you can find in Gavroliv's (one of the lead Russian jurist about copyrights) commentaries to Law-1993 and Code-2006 (for example Gavrilov Eh.P., Moskva, Ekzamen, 2005, p.360-362 in the case of Law-1993 - the raw full text of his commentaries can be found here, see p.12-14 near the end of text - start with Russian phrase 12. Пункты 4 и 5 относятся к тем случаям). As I said, there had been similar problem with misunderstanding of direct reading of these articles in ru-wiki, en-wiki and commons had early with GSE, posters and many other works created by hire (служебная работа) or by contract (авторский договор), which copyrights also belong to legal entities but do not fall under Article 6. Alex Spade (talk) 09:00, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- In the cases I'm familiar with, whether or not the author has transferred their copyright to the producer, a life+n copyright duration is still based on the life of the author. Elst may say that clearly, but it's not clear that is relevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- I know better" is not the best of arguments here
- Besides text article I have read Russian jurist commentaries, supported by courts decision about it. Similar problem we had many years ago with GSE and many Soviet posters. Alex Spade (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Where do you see in this article 6 that it relates only to the initial copyright ? It says quite clearly "the copyright which has arisen before 1993". The new copyright law always considers the persons as the initial authors but recognizes the fact the copyright has been assigned to moral persons under Soviet law. — Racconish ☎ 21:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Article 6 of Law 231-FZ (and similar article from previous Law-1993) says only about the initial copyright of legal entities as initial author by law (not just initial copyright holder by law), it is not about any copyright of legal entities and it is not even about the initial copyright of legal entities as employer (for work by hire) - these common misunderstandings/delusions of this article explains repeatedly in Russian jurist commentaries, supported by courts decision, because copyright terms depend on author data (author can be legal entity), not his employer or holder of his/its copyright. Moreover since Law-1928 (since Jan.1, 1929) studio had become author (again, not just initial copyright holder by law) for new films, not old ones. Alex Spade (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- Apologies for my mistake concerning the recent modification regarding the Berne convention. I still think we should leave aside the 1925 copyright law which is irrelevant. My understanding is that in all cases the current Russian copyright law considers the persons as the authors but acknowledges the fact that under the Soviet copyright law, the copyrights of films were all transferred to the studios, which became the copyright holders. Be it in 1928 or in 1964, the studio became the copyright holder for this film prior to 1993, which means article 6 of Federal Law No. 231-FZ of December 18, 2006 should be applied : "The copyright of legal entities which has arisen before August 3, 1993, that is, before the entry into force of Law of the Russian Federation No. 5351-I of July 9, 1993 on the Copyright and the Adjacent Rights, shall be terminated after the expiry of seventy years as from the day of the legally justified publication of the work [...] Towards the corresponding legal relations shall be applied by analogy the rules of Part Four of the Code. For the purposes of their application, such legal entities shall be seen as the authors of the works". — Racconish ☎ 20:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![140 File:Michael "Ike" Iaconelli.jpg](#File:Michael_"Ike"_Iaconelli.jpg){kind=link}
.GIF){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_awaiting_scrapping.jpg){kind=link}
_romania.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_romania_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_levigliani_1_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_volegno_1_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){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}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](/w/index.php?title=File:Afa7.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[2]](/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Escudo_AFA_actual.png){kind=link}
![[3]](/w/index.php?title=File:AFA1.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
![[4]](/w/index.php?title=File:Escudo_AFA.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
![16:12, 8 May 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/05/08#c-Gunnex-2016-05-08T16:12:00.000Z-File:Michael_"Ike"_Iaconelli.jpg){kind=link}
![19:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2016/05/08#c-Christian_Ferrer-2016-05-28T19:37:00.000Z-File:Michael_"Ike"_Iaconelli.jpg){kind=link}
_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%83.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.GIF&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.GIF&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_awaiting_scrapping.jpg){kind=link}
_awaiting_scrapping.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
_awaiting_scrapping.jpg){kind=link}
_awaiting_scrapping.jpg){kind=link}
- This cite is about films published after 1964 (only Code-1964 is mentioned). There is no doubt that authors of whose films (and films published after 1928) are studios (from copyright law POV). Moreover first clause from your cite says clearly about "legal persons... as original authors" (initial authors). The Supreme Court deprecated change of authorship by law change, it is true both for film authors 1929-1992(3) (in contrast to Law-1993 and Code-2006) and for films authors pre-1928 (in contrasrt to Law-1928 and Code-1964). Alex Spade (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- About your claim that "this cite is about films published after 1964 (only Code-1964 is mentioned)", allow me another quote :
When the Civil Code of the RSFSR went into effect in 1964, it was decided that its norms would be applied to relationships which had arisen earlier.
— Oleg Nikolaevich Sadikov, Soviet Civil Law, p. 26 [18]
- About your claim that "this cite is about films published after 1964 (only Code-1964 is mentioned)", allow me another quote :
- This cite is about films published after 1964 (only Code-1964 is mentioned). There is no doubt that authors of whose films (and films published after 1928) are studios (from copyright law POV). Moreover first clause from your cite says clearly about "legal persons... as original authors" (initial authors). The Supreme Court deprecated change of authorship by law change, it is true both for film authors 1929-1992(3) (in contrast to Law-1993 and Code-2006) and for films authors pre-1928 (in contrasrt to Law-1928 and Code-1964). Alex Spade (talk) 09:09, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Author of work defined by law effective on moment of creation of work - The Supreme Court, November 23, 2015. Code-1964 can be retroactive in some aspects, but not in aspect of authorship. Alex Spade (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Your last contribution is so short I don't understand it and the link does not seem to produce anything related to our subject. Do you know of any post-2008 jurisprudence relating to pre 1928 films ? — Racconish ☎ 15:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- You do not use Google translate? Ohhh... Ok. On this page is stated that you can view respective document without subscriptions between 20:00-24:00 MSK on workday (and at any time on the Russian days off work (generally these are Saturdays and Sundays) and holidays) or you can freely order respective document on your e-mail (delivery time is about several hours). In this document The Supreme Court looks into case when current and old copyright laws have different statement about authorship, and define that law effective on moment of creation of work must be used.
And lets play another game, because free status must be proved. Do your know of any post-2006/08 (or post-1993 at least) publication relating to free status of pre-1928 films (not about history of Russian copyright law, but about current state of old works). Alex Spade (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- You do not use Google translate? Ohhh... Ok. On this page is stated that you can view respective document without subscriptions between 20:00-24:00 MSK on workday (and at any time on the Russian days off work (generally these are Saturdays and Sundays) and holidays) or you can freely order respective document on your e-mail (delivery time is about several hours). In this document The Supreme Court looks into case when current and old copyright laws have different statement about authorship, and define that law effective on moment of creation of work must be used.
- Your last contribution is so short I don't understand it and the link does not seem to produce anything related to our subject. Do you know of any post-2008 jurisprudence relating to pre 1928 films ? — Racconish ☎ 15:44, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Author of work defined by law effective on moment of creation of work - The Supreme Court, November 23, 2015. Code-1964 can be retroactive in some aspects, but not in aspect of authorship. Alex Spade (talk) 12:59, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per COM:PCP - copyright situation has remained unclear. --Jcb (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)