Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/01/18
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
_(22642118495).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Identical to earlier upload Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dana Rosendorff, Deserted.jpghttp://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/dana-rosendorff Dl2000 (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- To fix the above rationale, image appears in http://www.gettyimages.fr/photos/dana-rosendorff and in IMDB (presumably IMDB got that from Getty or the source photographer in question). Admins are also requested to block User:Lovatloraine321 for repeated copyvio abuse of Commons. Dl2000 (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 08:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Not the author's own work. Edjoerv (talk) 03:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Arash Derambarsh - celebration d'un mariage à la mairie de Courbevoie le 5 juillet 2014.jpg
[edit]
no authorization (author) Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
Delete no permission. Il y avait déjà une demande de permission de l'auteur, cette demande de suppression est inutile Droit de retrait 03 ! --Scoopfinder(d) 15:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Canceled: "No permission" template is already present on the page and the rational for this DR is exactly the same, no need to add bureaucracy. --Scoopfinder(d) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Arash Derambarsh - celebration d'un mariage à la mairie de Courbevoie le 5 juillet 2014.jpg
[edit]
no autorization for this photo Droit de retrait 03 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:57, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
There is copyright violation from the following page.[1] It doesn't write appropriate author name. 著作権の侵害。適切な作成者の名前を記載していない。該当のページより転載。なお、Wikipediaの記事は既に削除依頼に提出してあります。 遡雨祈胡 (talk) 10:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete It can be applied speedy delete. I added {{Copyvio}} on this page. I omitted notifying the uploader since it has already done by submitter.--Kkairri (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Érico (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
bad quality Alexandronikos (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams, obviously of personal interest and serious personality rights issues (CHILD), hence, no educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - other opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Missing legal info Fixertool (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: web grab. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 04:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Deletion request on behalf of the anon IP who wishes to delete this, on the basis that they have withdrawn the original licence.
- "I removed he photo that I took because I no longer grant Wikipedia the rights to use it on this page."
- "Removed photo. Image copyright by wkinsler.com/truck Permission to use granted only if license fee paid per terms of wkinsler.com."
- (licence tag removed)
- "Do not give financial support to wikipedia. Donate to The People's Cube instead!"
I'm happy to accept that the anon IPs are the original author. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep The licences granted are irrevocable. There is no question of personality rights, image value, or doubtful licensing which might make us act otherwise. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep The licences granted are irrevocable… exactly everything Andy Dingley said. CFCF (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC) CFCF (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Ditto. Nearly ten years later is way too late for a courtesy deletion, and the file is in use on many other wikis. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Also see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/User_problems#Drum_brake_anon_IP_causing_trouble. A GF deletion request is one thing, sophomore vandalism another thing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Vandalism DR. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 03:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - Private party photo Sumitsurai (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, and no license. --Yann (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal images out of scope. Commons is not a personal media storage like Facebook, or Instagram.
(t) Josve05a (c) 18:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:Snapchat-3031311158342257536.jpg
- File:Prince, Charles Davidso.jpg
- File:Prince, Charles Davidson. .jpg
- File:Sir, Hardy Sonds.jpg
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 talk★contribs 04:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
No evidence that the image is public domain or that it was released under a compatible license. Source does not contain the colored image so it appears that a derivative work was made without disclosure. - MrX 00:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete. Assuming that the black and white (BW) image is PD, this colorful one is either a colorized derivative work based on the BW version, or else is the original work from which the BW version was made. In either case, we don't have any evidence that the colorful pic is PD.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- @Gage: Where did you obtain this image? MB298 (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. A PD image can be 'colored' in later, its officially released under a PD licence, not a CC-BY-ND...--Stemoc 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that you haven't established that it's public domain. - MrX 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Even if the BW version is public domain, and this one is a colorized derivative work, the genius who did the colorization did substantial creative work and would be entitled to a copyright. Who was that genius, and why won't he give us a license to use this image?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- If the person who did the color work wanted credit, Gage would have given it to him, again, its a PD image and thuis can be colored, altered, chopped into pieces and used as a propaganda material, it won't matter what happens to it once its released. This is an advantage of images released under the PD-Licence, and to answer MrX, the image was sourced from an official government website media file, not some random off-site which has nothing to do with the US Government and thus can be deemed to be free. It also included an image of the incoming VP, Mike Pence as well which goes to dhow, its an official image released even though it has officially not been released publicly for reasons unknown and why still in Black and White (maybe trump does not like seeing himself in color? (we know he is very narcissistic) .--Stemoc 01:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Even if the BW version is public domain, and this one is a colorized derivative work, the genius who did the colorization did substantial creative work and would be entitled to a copyright. Who was that genius, and why won't he give us a license to use this image?Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Except that you haven't established that it's public domain. - MrX 00:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Is it really so hard for us to wait on a real image? Let them decide what the official portrait is and release it. We're just grasping at straws (programs). Muboshgu (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- and keep per Stemoc. MB298 (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - There is no evidence that this image is public domain. It was obviously cut out of a .pdf document and hand re-colored by an editor without notice that it is derivative work. The source document does not include any photographer attribution or compatible license notice. - MrX 00:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak Keep - The image falls under PD-USGov, as the image originated from The Senate, but the source of the colorized image is still not given by the uploader Gage. I will turn my Weak Keep into a Keep if he could find the source. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep - Gage stated that he colorized the image, originating from The Senate. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep if it is in the public domain, obviously. MrX makes a good point. This could be a problem for us. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – The original image is by definition in the public domain. The derivative works (colorization and/or cropping) are PD too unless the uploader asserts otherwise. BUT for completeness somebody should explain whether they found a color PD source or they colorized it themselves. JFG (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative work of public domain photo released by governmental entity. I colorized the photo as a derivative work of the black and white version. Gage (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoshiman6464: there's the source. MB298 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping, MB298, and thanks for your hard work in colorizing the image, Gage! Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoshiman6464: there's the source. MB298 (talk) 02:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep in view of new colorization info from User:Gage.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep if this is really in the public domain. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Yoshiman6464, but don't use. Use the official (uncolorized) artwork. Maybe Trump believes that B&W is more 'professional', or that RGB isn't CMYK. Dervorguilla (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- I doubt Trump would want to present himself in "Black and White". Other than the title pages, all of the pages to the program are in Black and White. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Obama inauguration program also had a black and white photo, but they happened to also post the color version on the website, which unfortunately the GreatAgain.gov website didn't do. Gage (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep it appears a lot of users don't want donald trump's official photo because they are butthurt about the election.
- Keep on basis of no better PD image representing scope and role within government. Hand-coloring OK if author releases under PD or free license compatible with Wikipedia, and for purposes of illustration should be included until official, color image is released. Apologies for a whataboutism, but copyright status of the Senate Inaugural Committee is a lot clearer than photo listed as w:en:Kim Jong-un portrait, which is a sketch, due to copyright uncertainties held worldwide. [Note: copied from the cropped AfD] Ellomate (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - it's been fibbingly claiming 'official portrait' in discussions, so no. I understand that the image origin isn't known, all there is seems that a photoshop that added a flag and background was published in pdf by the Senate. But they did photoshops then someone here did photoshops and airbrushed a bit and ... really it's not been stating the trail and seems invalid labels put in. As Muboshgu said, is it really so hard to wait for the REAL official picture ? Markbassett (talk) 03:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- There is no deletion request for this black and white image, and so I gather that no one disputes its provenance and licensing. So colorizing and cropping it seems legitimate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, because this image is released to be in public domain. Anjo Sozinho (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative works of public domain material is also in the public domain, unless such derivation is above the threshold of originality to warrant a new copyright for the person who made it.Since Gage has admitted he did the derivative work, and he hasn't asserted any copyright over the derivative work he has made, I don't see what is the issue here. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep.. Already speakers say Kamil.ryy (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC).
- Keep. I love the photo of Donald Trump on the page of List of Presidents of the United States. Remember that his photo on the List of Presidents of the United States is in color, not in black and white. We're not in the time of the professional photographer Yousuf Karsh when photos were considered black and white.(t) Masterlet (c) 06:56, 20 January 2017 (EST).
- Keep The official @POTUS account on Twitter uses this picture so it must be official. Someone Not Awful (talk) 17:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment @Gage: Now that the whitehouse.gov website has changed over, there is a 'unretouched' color version, that has been uploaded at File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg. - Reventtalk 18:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment:
File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg has a source page that doesn't actually have that photo. Maybe they deleted it during the transition this afternoon?User:Gage uploaded it, and he knows what he's doing, so I it had to have been there at some point. But do we know that was done by a federal employee as opposed to just provided by Trump? I put a message at User talk:Gage#File source is not properly indicated: File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg. --Closeapple (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)- Argh! The White House's Donald Trump URL showed me different content if I came from the direct URL than if I clicked on "The Administration" at the bottom of the home page. The photo is really there: It's https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/whitehouse.gov/files/images/45/PE%20Color.jpg and has EXIF and IPTC info, but does not have an author name and does not have the usual White House photo description/disclaimer in it. --Closeapple (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Ternoc (talk) 23:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. --Sealle (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No evidence that the image is public domain or that it was released under a compatible license. Source does not contain the colored image so it appears that a derivative work was made without disclosure. An editor has apparently hand colored a black and white image. - MrX 00:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Delete This image was extracted from another image that's also up for deletion, see here. My reasons are stated more fully there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep. A PD image can be 'colored' in later, its officially released under a PD licence, not a CC-BY-ND...--Stemoc 00:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Weak Keep - The image falls under PD-USGov, as the image originated from The Senate, but the source of the colorized image is still not given by the uploader Gage. I will turn my Weak Keep into a Keep if he could find the source. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)- Keep - In the other deletion request, User:Gage stated that he colorized the image himself. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep – The original image is by definition in the public domain. The derivative works (colorization and/or cropping) are PD too unless the uploader asserts otherwise. BUT for completeness somebody should explain whether they found a color PD source or they colorized it themselves. JFG (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep in view of late-breaking colorization info (see deletion discussion for the original colorized image).Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep on basis of no better PD image representing scope and role within government. Hand-coloring OK if author releases under PD or free license compatible with Wikipedia, and for purposes of illustration should be included until official, color image is released. Apologies for a whataboutism, but copyright status of the Senate Inaugural Committee is a lot clearer than photo listed as w:en:Kim Jong-un portrait, which is a sketch, due to copyright uncertainties held worldwide. Ellomate (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Per the other discussion page from which this file was extracted. Gage (talk) 01:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, but don't use at subject article. Use the official pic, which is monochrome. Dervorguilla (talk) 01:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. Since we are certain of the provenance and licensing of the black and white image, I would rather use that instead of the colorized version.--FeralOink (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - this one got rushed thru...and seems too incompletely informed about what it is to let stand. It seems a photoshop of some prior imagery was used for the inauguration committee, adding a flag and whitehouse backdrop and then tinting it B&W. (It seems to be the one that Yahoo has been showing for a while in color). Then someone here seems to have scanned the inauguration pdf somehow and photoshopped some color back in and airbrushed his hairline a tiny bit and cropped a few edits more and here we are. Anyway, all these edits seems too quirky and so have been invalidly and misleadingly labeled as an "official release" or "Portrait" or "released". I think without factually correct sourcing and saying what the origin photo is, it lacks WP:IUP "Required information". Markbassett (talk) 03:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- There is no deletion request for this black and white image, and so I gather that no one disputes its provenance and licensing. So colorizing and cropping it seems legitimate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, because this image is released to be in the public domain. Anjo Sozinho (talk) 10:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep this is such a no-brainer
Keep it, nothing wrong with the photo, the ONLY reason this is being debated is because of some butt-hurt, candyass liberal.
- Keep This is obviously a publication of the U.S. government. It is free-use. It has been colorized, but the official version, high-res, should be available as soon as tomorrow. Spartan7W (talk) 15:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep US government works are PD. 71.63.240.155 22:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Wait till inauguration, then keep In that case it is then officially government photo. Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Derivative works of public domain material is also in the public domain, unless such derivation is above the threshold of originality to warrant a new copyright for the person who made it.Since Gage has admitted he did the derivative work, and he hasn't asserted any copyright over the derivative work he has made, I don't see what is the issue here. (t) Josve05a (c) 06:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep.. Already speakers say Kamil.ryy (talk) 08:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC).
- Comment - An official presidential portrait has been released, as seen here. It is both High Quality and in True-Color. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Yoshiman6464: -I think it is OK to have more than one image of Donald Trump. But, thanks for letting us know about that image.
Kept: per discussion. --Sealle (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Sammy,kent (talk · contribs)
[edit]missing Exif; once with Fotograf: Oneal_Mujjumbura
- File:Kabz-Haloha.jpg
- File:Beryl-wiki-profile.jpg
- File:Bugembe-Williams-wikipedia.jpg
- File:Douglas-wikipedia.jpg
- File:Brian-Ahumuza-wikipedia.jpg
Hystrix (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
apparent copyvio Djadjko (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SobakaKachalova (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photographs and derivatives of artworks, no OTRS permissions.
We have permission (ticket:2015052710014871) from heir of the photographer to files above. --sasha (krassotkin) 08:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC) |
_%D0%B2_%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B5_%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%BB%D0%B5_%D0%B3%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8B_%D0%B2_1970-%D1%85_%D0%B3%D0%B3..jpg){kind=link}
- File:Улица Прозоровская дома 24 26 28 Фото 1955 года.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110002013
- File:Деревня Потлово Сычёвский район Смоленской области 1966 год.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110002013
- File:Бормотов Александр Тимофеевич.JPG — Permission OTRS 2017012110002013
- File:Эскиз к спектаклю "Весна-весна" для Волгоградского музыкального театра.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:Эскиз к спектаклю "Из записок Лопатина" для Волгоградского областного драматического театра.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:Эскиз к спектаклю "Я пришел дать вам волю" для Волгоградского областного драматического театра.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:Эскиз к спектаклю "Бал-маскарад" для Волгоградского музыкального театра.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:Эскиз к сп ТОСКА для царицынской оперы.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:Мурзин Михаил Васильевич.jpg — Permission OTRS 2017012110001774
- File:S.L.A. members Patricia Soltysik and Donald DeFreeze, with Patty Hearst.jpg — {{PD-USGov}}
Яй (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- OTRS permissions have been added to some files' pages by the uploader after this request and are to be checked by OTRS agents. Thanks, --Яй (talk) 04:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Яй, файл File:S.L.A. members Patricia Soltysik and Donald DeFreeze, with Patty Hearst.jpg - запись с камеры наблюдения в банке Хиберния в Калифорнии, в википедии есть еще два снимка в тот же день с той же камеры (с разницей в несколько секунд), они были сделаны ФБР и в находятся в Public Domain. Вот они: File:Hearst-hibernia-yell.jpg и en:File:Patricia_Soltysik_Bank_Robbery.jpg. Проверьте пожалуйства, чтоб не затёрли. Спасибо. SobakaKachalova (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
На снимки Бормотова File:Улица Прозоровская дома 24 26 28 Фото 1955 года.jpg (Permission OTRS 2017012110002013), File:Деревня Потлово Сычёвский район Смоленской области 1966 год.jpg (Permission OTRS 2017012110002013), File:Бормотов Александр Тимофеевич.JPG (Permission OTRS 2017012110002013), разрешение владелица авт. прав отправила в permissions 15 февраля 2015г, а позавчера я отправила в permissions свою копию (разрешение находится не в самом теле емэйла, а это doc файл в аттачменте, его надо открыть), но пока нет ответа. SobakaKachalova (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- По Бормотову: разрешение получено и подтверждено по всем трём фото, Ticket#2017012110002013. С уважением, --Dogad75 (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: OTRS permissions granted. --Sealle (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It does not look like "own work". It's copied from here [2]. Alexei Kopylov (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I don't mind. Please do not remove.
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kannansivaram (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyrighted images. Need COM:OTRS permission to keep them here. Even with OTRS permissions, most of the images are {{Out of scope}}
- File:M N Roy.jpg
- File:Ravipudi Venkatadri.jpg
- File:Nityachaitanya Yati.jpg
- File:Burqua is our choice.jpg
- File:Phule Quote.jpg
- File:Buddha NN.png
- File:Most Dangerous Creation of Man.png
- File:Periyar on Faith.jpg
- File:Nastik Nation - Hinduism .jpg
- File:Hindu ritual - Nastik Nation.jpg
- File:Nastik Nation - Pagal Aadmi.jpg
- File:On his daughters' education .jpg
- File:Periyar .jpg
- File:Tempe traditions - a cartoon.jpg
- File:Poet Kureepuzha Sreekumar.jpg
- File:Pagal Aadmi - the lunatic.jpg
- File:The job of a Hindu priest.jpg
- File:Vaastu.jpg
- File:NastikNation Meme.jpg
- File:NastikNation.jpg
- File:Nastik Nation.jpg
- File:Ravipudi venkatadri.jpg
Sreejith K (talk) 02:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nomination. --~AntanO4task (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kannansivaram (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and stamps. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Gail-Tredwell.jpg
- File:ReceivingAwardFromPresident.jpg
File:PeriyarEVRStamp.jpg- File:SahodaranAyyappanImage.jpg
- File:PanampillyGovindaMenon.jpg
- File:Suleesla AKG.jpg
- File:SuseelaGopalan.jpg
- File:RavichandranC2.jpg
- File:Sreenisir.jpg
- File:RavipudiV.jpg
- File:Srini Pattathanam.jpg
- File:Guptan Nair.jpg
- File:NatarajaGuru.jpg
- File:EdasseryGovindanNair.jpg
- File:MadhaviAmma.jpg
- File:NityaChaitanyaYati.jpg
- File:NaliniJameela.jpg
- File:Sahithyapanchanan.jpg
- File:S Guptan Nair.jpg
- File:Vettom Mani.jpg
- File:VenuNaxal.jpg
- File:Vagbhatananda.jpg
- File:BrahmanandaSivayogi.jpg
- File:K Venu.png
- File:RadhikaVemula.jpg
- File:Pampady John Joseph.jpg
- File:Rohit Vemula.jpg
- File:MA Baby--Abhimanyu.jpg
- File:AbhimanyuMaharajascampus.jpg
- File:AbhimanyuMaharajas.jpg
- File:PoikayilGuru.jpg
- File:PoikayilAppachan.jpg
- File:Book Cover EV.jpg
- File:EVKrishnapillai.jpg
- File:K Ayyappa Paniker.jpg
- File:Anil Panachooran.jpg
- File:C Kesavan Jeevitha Samaram.jpg
- File:VT Bhattathirippadu.jpg
- File:MP Paul.jpg
- File:EdapalliRaghavanPillai.jpg
- File:ChanganpuzhaKrishnaPillai.jpg
- File:Changapuzha with Wife Sreed.jpg
- File:KuttipuzhaKrishnaPillai wit.jpg
- File:Kuttipuzha Krishna Pillai.jpg
- File:K Balakrishnan.jpg
- File:MIthavaadi Krishnan.jpg
- File:C V Kunhiraman.jpg
- File:M C Joseph.jpg
- File:Pavanan.jpg
- File:Babu Gogineni.jpg
- File:Chennupati Vidya.jpg
- File:Saraswathi Gora And Gora.jpg
- File:Saraswathi Gora.jpg
- File:Lavanam Gora.jpg
File:Stamp gora.jpg- File:Gora Stamp Img.jpg
- File:Joseph Idamaruku.jpg
- File:Hi-tech stage of Litmus '19.jpg
- File:Kannan Sivaram.jpg
- File:Mundassery with Thakazhi and Kuttippuzha.jpg
- File:Professor Joseph Mundassery swearing in.jpg
- File:Joseph Mundassery .jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 05:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kannansivaram (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos. Duplicates. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 04:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
- Comment: I have struck off two files (File:PeriyarEVRStamp.jpg and File:Stamp gora.jpg) from the nomination list after fixing the license, author, source etc. and after permission from the nominator in their talk page. Suneye1 (talk) 05:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete the remaining per nomination. Suneye1 (talk) 05:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Pippobuono as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: deletion|bad photoshop, injurious of public person Is obvious that this is a satire and not a deffamation picture. Amitie 10g (talk) 11:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete this is also a copyvio, as it is made from a precedent picture where the at this time pope was presenting his book about Jesus of Nazareth, see anywhere on the web, for instance [3]. So it should be rapidly deleted Pippobuono (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
![[3]](http://images.google.fr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.periodistadigital.com/imagenes/2014/03/10/jesus-de-nazaret.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.periodistadigital.com/religion/vaticano/2014/03/10/benedicto-xvi-preocupado-por-el-rechaza-a-la-figura-de-jesus-iglesia-religion-dios-jesus-papa-obispo.shtml&h=450&w=333&tbnid=WfbaG7hAgG66wM:&vet=1&tbnh=92&tbnw=68&docid=kqVJ54Oh956ufM&hl=fr&usg=__k-fzjHkgpsxvsE5hLdK9xPpxyFw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9mpSN0cvRAhVqI8AKHSttC70Q9QEIMTAC){kind=link}
Deleted: by Jcb: bad photoshop from a picture you can see anywhere on the web. --Sealle (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Arcoirisperu (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope; Personal image(s).
- File:Jorge20010.jpg
- File:F454316176.jpg
- File:F141313992.jpg
- File:Jorge20001.jpg
- File:Famare.jpg
- File:F454314416.jpg
- File:F232560144.jpg
- File:Ensillarue.jpg
- File:Casax2.jpg
- File:Carnet-fpp001.jpg
- File:Ma01.jpg
- File:Jorgeariel.jpg
- File:Jorge20029.jpg
MCMLXXXIX 15:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope; not useful for educational purposes. MCMLXXXIX 15:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ernest Tai (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos are various resolutions, some with, some without EXIF, various cameras being used. If these are images by CASL, they need to demonstrate permission for licence.
- File:CASL Stores.jpg
- File:CASL Shop.JPG
- File:CASL GSE.JPG
- File:CASL Training.jpg
- File:CASL CS.jpg
- File:CASL LM.JPG
- File:CASL BM.jpg
- File:CASLHangar.jpg
Американский папаша (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Hrfjdkslejr (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
199.7.156.128 15:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rentero69down (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ninew theDrama (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
- File:ครูเบลล์ 6616.jpg
- File:Team03-circle.png
- File:ครูเบลล์ 9594.jpg
- File:ครูเบลล์ 4381.jpg
- File:The drama Academy.png
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope.
§§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope, small size, no EXIF data. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
small size, low quality, no exif, no evidence of permissions Krd 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
small size, low quality, no exif, no evidence of permissions Krd 08:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- delete. unused personal image 88.252.184.76 09:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Kanazawaman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Very unlikely to be own works: small size, no EXIF data.
- File:橋本大翔のライブ.jpg
- File:納涼祭での橋本大翔ステージ.jpg
- File:橋本大翔の歌唱映像.jpg
- File:デジカラでの橋本大翔.jpg
- File:橋本大翔の撮影.jpg
- File:越谷レイクタウンでのジャンガラーと橋本大翔.jpg
- File:高円寺 Salon by Marbleでの橋本大翔ライブ.jpg
- File:鶴橋sectionでの橋本大翔ライブ.jpg
- File:ラジオ出演時の橋本大翔.jpg
- File:第17回練馬ファミリーフェスタでの橋本大翔のライブステージ.jpg
- File:橋本大翔のイラスト.jpg
Yann (talk) 08:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
collage of two images, sources of both are unclear §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 08:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. Yann (talk) 09:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own works.
- File:Схема аутентификации HTTP.jpg
- File:Схема аутентификации Windows.jpg
- File:Схема аутентификации.jpg
Yann (talk) 09:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused text in Persan Pippobuono (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The file contains unused Urdu text. Pani means water in Urdu--47.150.70.205 22:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Low-quality image of the Moroccan flag. We have various SVGs available. Fry1989 eh? 20:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused and unusable poor quality, many better ones at Category:Sherbrooke, Quebec P 1 9 9 ✉ 21:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
no educational value, dark and blurry image, many superior images are available in Category:Cebus capucinus Daphne Lantier 22:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
test image unused, no educational value Daphne Lantier 22:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. G I Chandor (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal picture. G I Chandor (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
personal pic collection, none in use
Daphne Lantier 23:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:31, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own works, no permission.
- File:Actin Logo and Software Image.png
- File:Actin Controlling the Robotic Drilling Systems DFR-1500.gif
- File:Actin UR5 Robotic Tool Path.gif
- File:Actin Dynamic Collision Avoidance.gif
- File:Actin 8 DOF Robot and AGV.gif
- File:Actin Satellite Servicing.gif
- File:Yaskawa Fronius Energid 16 DOF Coordinated Weld.gif
- File:FANUC Lincoln Energid 13 DOF Coordinated Coped Tube Weld.gif
- File:Actin® Robotic Programming Screenshot.png
Yann (talk) 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:09, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by KOSuniverse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size, no EXIF data, unlikely to be own works.
- File:Offensive Line 1 (1991).jpg
- File:Bob Skemp and Danny Webb.jpg
- File:Bob Skemp 2.jpg
- File:Bob Skemp 1.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Yann (talk) 09:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused textlogo with unknown importance, maybe out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It is very unlikely that the subject himself is the author and we received a request on OTRS to delete it because it is a "personal picture". Scoopfinder(d) 10:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: as per nomination; no proof that it is a self-portrait. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC).
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Book covers are usually protected with copyright. Who is cover artist and does (s)he allow publishing it under free license? Taivo (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Book covers are usually protected with copyright. Who is cover artist and does (s)he allow publishing it under free license? Taivo (talk) 10:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be a game avatar. If the avatar was created by the uploader, then it is out of scope as personal art of a non-notable artist. If not, it is a copyvio. Either way we cannot keep it on Commons. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, for the same reason:
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
not own work, probable copyvio Pippobuono (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by NandaDulalMaity (talk · contribs)
[edit]Based on exif, these appear to be grabs from Facebook and should be deleted
- File:Suvendu Adhikari.jpg
- File:Asish Chakraborty-Nanti.jpg
- File:Pranab Basu.jpg
- File:Mrigen Maity001.jpg
- File:Asish Chakraborty(Nanti Da).jpg
- File:In Election Campaign Garbeta Assembly.jpg
- File:Asish Chakraborty .jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
—SpacemanSpiff 11:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused photo, educational value? out of cope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused screenshot of a broadcast - copyvio Mjrmtg (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of scope Mjrmtg (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mustafa52polat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of project scope. Commons is not a private photo album. No educational purpose. Not used.
George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ibcdelaware (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement and logos of company of questionable notability.
- File:Ibc social.jpg
- File:Plaquette 2.jpg
- File:Follow us1.jpg
- File:IBC Delaware INFO ENG.pdf
- File:IBC Delaware.jpg
- File:Full Legal Notice 2017.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by TechnoHistorian (talk · contribs)
[edit]Video clips. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:20030830 UE - The Rise of the Tribe, Beogradska tvrđava - Tomato & Timo Maas.webm
- File:20030829 UE - The Rise of the Tribe, Beogradska tvrđava - Deep Dish.webm
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by CreativeIndustry (talk · contribs)
[edit]Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:20020208 SWISS STAR HOUSE - Radio announcement.flac
- File:LAIK - Predosećanja otkrovenja - LP Rast univerzuma - 2003.wav
- File:GOCKSY - Track 2.wav
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
self promotion - made explicit by the usage, authorship & title Cabayi (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep en:Shae Dupuy portrait -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Haydimoruk (talk · contribs)
[edit]profile pics unused
Daphne Lantier 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Karanpassey (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Kamalinee Poetry Festival.jpg
- File:Kamalinee Mukherjee Shirdi Sai.jpg
- File:Kamalinee Mukherjee Profile.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Dieses Wappen ist falsch. siehe https://www.dettenheim.de/seite/220035/wappen.html Direktlink: https://fotos.verwaltungsportal.de/seitengenerator/gross/wappen_dettenheim.jpg BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Hallo BlueBreezeWiki, du hast nicht schon mal etwas von Heraldik und Blasonierung gehört? Das ist das Gleiche und mit heraldischer Referenz. MfG ↔ User: Perhelion 19:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Die svg-Datei hat zwar eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit mit dem Original, ist und bleibt aber dennoch falsch. Auch die Gemeinde Dettenheim erwähnt dieses auf ihrer Webseite. Gruß --95.89.60.178 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- In Bezug auf Logos mag das stimmen, bei Wappen ist das reine Geschmackssache, vgl. Template:COA blazon. Da das Wappen keine "Eigenkreation" ist wird es sicher nicht gelöscht werden, s.a. eins drüber. ↔ User: Perhelion 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Es gibt hier keine offiziell verbindlich zwingend vorgeschriebene Gestaltung. --Achim (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- In Bezug auf Logos mag das stimmen, bei Wappen ist das reine Geschmackssache, vgl. Template:COA blazon. Da das Wappen keine "Eigenkreation" ist wird es sicher nicht gelöscht werden, s.a. eins drüber. ↔ User: Perhelion 18:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Die svg-Datei hat zwar eine gewisse Ähnlichkeit mit dem Original, ist und bleibt aber dennoch falsch. Auch die Gemeinde Dettenheim erwähnt dieses auf ihrer Webseite. Gruß --95.89.60.178 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion & inuse. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from other photos.
- File:திரு.க. பேரம்பலம்.jpg
- File:பண்டிதர்.திரு.பொன்.கந்தையனார்.jpg
- File:திரு.சி.செல்லத்துரை.jpg
- File:திரு.கந்தையா முருகேசு.jpg
- File:கல்லூரியின் இன்றைய முகப்புத் தோற்றம்.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
It seems not own work, but scanned image and possible to copyvios.
- File:மதிய உணவு 1990 இல் வழங்குதல.jpg
- File:திரு.திருமதி. கந்தையா அவர்களின் மணிவிழாவின் போது.jpg
- File:ஆசிரியர்களுடன் நான்கு அதிபர்கள் ஓரே காலத்தில்.jpg
- File:இந்து கலாச்சார விழாவின் முகவாசல் தோற்றம்(2003.05.30).jpg
- File:பழைய மண்டபம் அன்றைய தோற்றம்(1924).jpg
- File:மக்கள் மண்டபம் 2.jpg
- File:மக்கள் மண்டபம் 1.jpg
- File:திரு.தம்பு.கந்தையா(1992.10.06).jpg
- File:பழைய மண்டபம்(1924).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~AntanO4task (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not own work. I could be scanned or re-captured images.
- File:திரு.தம்பு.கந்தையா அதிபருடன்கொடிகாமம் வணிகர் மன்றம்.jpg
- File:கல்லூரியின் இன்றைய முகத் தோற்றம்(2017.01.22).jpg
- File:1992 இல் முதன் முதல் பரிசளிப்பு நிகழ்வின காட்சி.jpg
- File:கச்சாய் வீதிக்கு கிழக்கேயுள்ள 50x25 மேல்மாடிக் கட்டிடம்.jpg
- File:2003 இல் பவளவிழாவின்கல்லூரி அதிபர் உரையாற்றும் நிகழ்வு.jpg
- File:இல்ல மெய்வல்லுனர் போட்டியில் மாணவர் அணிநடை.jpg
- File:அதிபர் திரு.தம்பு.கந்தையா அவர்களின் மணிவிழா மண்டப வெளித்தோற்றம்.jpg
- File:2008 அதிபர் திரு.திருமதி.கந்தையா அவரது இல்லத்தில் இருந்து கல்லூரி சமூகத்தால் அழைத்து வரு.jpg
- File:2003 இல் இல்ல மெய்வல்லுனர் போட்டிக்கு ரவிராஜ் அழைத்து வரும்போது.jpg
- File:திரு.திருமதி.கந்தையா அவர்கள் மாணவர்களினால் கௌரவிக்கப்படல்.jpg
- File:2002 இல்ல மெய்வல்லுனர் போட்டியில் தி.மகேஸ்வரன் பிரதமவிருந்தினர்.jpg
- File:அதிபர் கந்தையா அவர்களை மாணவர்கள் இன்முகத்துடன் வரவேற்றல்.jpg
- File:திரு.த.கந்தையா அதிபர் மாணவர்களுக்கு ஆசி வழங்குதல்.jpg
- File:2008 மணிவிழாவில் சாரணர்களினால் கௌரவிக்கப்படுதல்.jpg
- File:1997 இல் நடைபெற்ற பரிசில் நாளின் போது.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
~AntanO4task (talk) 02:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pjonathanmanley (talk · contribs)
[edit]After finding photos uploaded by this user to have been taken from the Interquest website, I would suggest that the remainder of these claims of own work be considered in light of COM:PRP. Also see http://www.interquestgroup.com/corporate/vacancies/recruitment-manager#.WH-rmIVJ_7c, for the direct match on one of the images below. The remainders are logos, and other photos of dubious own work. The entire upload is promotional for Interquest.
- File:Email logo.jpg
- File:InterQuest Group's office in Berkhamsted.jpg
- File:IQ-Analytics-300.jpg
- File:InterQuest's Tunbridge Wells Office.jpg
- File:InterQuest journey.jpg
- File:HarrogateIQ.JPG
- File:InterquestCrossStreet.jpg
- File:InterQuestManchester.JPG
- File:InterQuest Group Logo.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RUBEL SHAK PABNA (talk · contribs)
[edit]One of the things Commons is not, is a webhost for private images of non-notable people. This gallery is entirely personal images.
- File:My photo6.jpg
- File:Ullzl2.jpg
- File:My photo 4.jpg
- File:Pabna my.jpg
- File:My photo5.jpg
- File:My photo3.jpg
- File:My bari.jpg
- File:Ullzl.jpg
- File:My photo2.jpg
- File:Received 1800077300204879.jpg
- File:Received 1800077890204820.jpg
- File:Pabna silida.jpg
- File:Rubel shak by pabna 2017.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Also triggered filter 149 - another Wikipedia zero load of uploads. Ronhjones (Talk) 01:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, although taken with a DSLR, imho doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Complex logo, not an own work. Texniths (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
_(22642118495).jpg){kind=link}
_(22642118495).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Copyrighted element must be removed Discasto talk 11:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
_(22642118495).jpg){kind=link}
Comment I've cropped the image. Uncropped one should be removed from the history. --Discasto talk 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
_(22642118495).jpg){kind=link}
Kept: ok, uncropped hidden. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
_(22642118495).jpg){kind=link}
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination+above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: this is simple text and I found an usage. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files in Category:Tetouan
[edit]Too dark to be useful
- File:Capo negro.jpg
- File:Jbel dersa by night - panoramio.jpg
- File:Jbel dersa by night from tetouan - panoramio.jpg
- File:Tetouan Clear.jpg
Discasto talk 14:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, dark and mostly blurred. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by JoyceMarcelle (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern art. I think artist identity/permission confirmation via Commons:OTRS is necessary.
- File:Pauline Marcelle Bend down boutique 67.tif
- File:Toxi City.jpg
- File:Silk City.jpg
- File:Eclecti City.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle Bend down boutique 094.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle Bend down boutique 84.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle Bend down boutique 64.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle do not overload.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle Bend down boutique 56.jpg
- File:Pauline Marcelle .jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: in all cases dulicate of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JPNB004.jpg. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Historical book cover. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
profile pic not in use Daphne Lantier 00:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
This is not own work. IXTA9839 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as the uploader is the nominator so the file must indeed not be their own. 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 07:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal image of a non-notable person serves no encyclopedic purpose. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not own work as per watermark, EXIF ~AntanO4task (talk) 06:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copy on Getty: http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/austrian-producer-and-award-winner-philipp-fussenegger-attends-the-picture-id608551694?s=594x594 Yann (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal image. Kaulder (contribs | talk) 09:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Should Category:Amy Anderson also be deleted?199.7.156.128 22:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. Ruthven (msg) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Recent artwork by Béatrice Guichard in Paris. But there is No Fop in France Tangopaso (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
personal image. out of scope Austriantraveler (talk) 09:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep enwiki user's image --Ruthven (msg) 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in use. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Logo of non-notable company (no mention neither in en.wiki nor in fr.wiki), out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Artiste morte en 1981, donc autorisation nécessaire des ayants droits Shev123 (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Artiste toujours vivant, autorisation nécessaire Shev123 (talk) 10:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Artiste toujours vivant, autorisation nécesaire Shev123 (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused logo of questionable notability : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Do we keep such files? Mhhossein talk 13:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unusable, no educational value, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Wrong Title Naveengopakumar (talk) 13:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, use {{Rename}} to request a different file name. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:06, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: duplicate of File:METKA-Clear background.png. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Keep The file is now being used in MBS College of Crete so it is in the Commons' project scope. De728631 (talk) 13:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you smoking? It is in use, therefore in scope. Some kind of revenge deletion in the Greek school isle. Speedy keep all of his nominations. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just to be fair, when the file was nominated for deletion it was not in use. That was why I included it in WP article to document the current logo. I have to admit, however, that I too felt that this DR smacked somewhat of bad faith from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 15:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- What are you smoking? It is in use, therefore in scope. Some kind of revenge deletion in the Greek school isle. Speedy keep all of his nominations. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 00:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: In scope. Only commercial logos are usually considered promotional and/or advertising. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not an own work; obviously scanned from somewhere. It says right on the map that it was drawn by "Bennie et Partners." I found a likely source here: [4]. Schéma d’aménagement des ressources en eau dans la région d’Alger is probably copyrighted. Mackensen (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: map created in 1983, too early to be PD. Ruthven (msg) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dj Karemwa (talk · contribs)
[edit]Songs. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deleted by Jcb. Ruthven (msg) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
file in copyviol (è un marchio registrato) Danyele (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Too simple logo. - Fma12 (talk) 16:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Fma12. Ruthven (msg) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
El titular de la imagen, Luis Callejo, en virtud del derecho a la imagen propia, desea que se elimine este archivo. Tandemtalent (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- La imagen ha sido extraída de un vídeo con una licencia compatible con la de Commons. Asimismo, no sé quién es la persona que dice hablar en nombre del actor. Huelga decir que la imagen no ha sido utilizada para degradarle, ni mucho menos, sino para poder utilizar una imagen con la que ilustrar los diferentes artículos en los que aparezca. Como ya he dicho antes, estamos hablando de un personaje público que aparece en un vídeo cuya licencia es compatible con la nuestra. Alelapenya (talk) 17:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Si Luis Callejo quiere que se elimine esta imagen, debería escribie al servicio OTRS desde un correo electrónico verificable. Ruthven (msg) 14:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Inappropriate for students. Is the first image in a Google image search with use rights filtered to support appropriate use. 165.138.236.2 16:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious vandalism. Ruthven (msg) 14:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Screenshot from one of the Harry Potter movies // Gikü said done Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:27 (UTC) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted screenshot // Gikü said done Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:27 (UTC) 17:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 14:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
single upload, small size without metadata, maybe copyright violation Daphne Lantier 00:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Please don't delete. I took the photo and I own the house. Thanks! Joe Offenberg 04:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Assume Good Faith - Joe, please upload this image again with the same filename at full camera resolution. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States - monument in San Diego created in the 2000s Daphne Lantier 00:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File was uploaded as "own work", but it is almost certainly not since the painter en:Florian K. Lawton died in 2011.The Florian K. Lawton Foundation seems to acting on behalf of Lawton and his heirs, and the foundation is selling some of his work online; therefore, so I don't think they'd want to have any of his work released under a free license. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that anyone associated with Lawton has agreed to freely license the painting and the painting itself does not appear old enough for {{PD-Art}} if the date given in the description is correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File was uploaded as "own work", but it is almost certainly not since the painter en:Florian K. Lawton died in 2011.The Florian K. Lawton Foundation seems to acting on behalf of Lawton and his heirs, and the foundation is selling some of his work online; therefore, so I don't think they'd want to have any of his work released under a free license. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that anyone associated with Lawton has agreed to freely license the painting and the painting itself does not appear old enough for {{PD-Art}} if the date given in the description is correct. There may also be a problem because the file shows the painting in a frame which may make the frame a 3D-work per COM:PD-Art#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art requiring another copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File was uploaded as "own work", but it is almost certainly not since the painter en:Florian K. Lawton died in 2011.The Florian K. Lawton Foundation seems to acting on behalf of Lawton and his heirs, and the foundation is selling some of his work online; therefore, so I don't think they'd want to have any of his work released under a free license. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that anyone associated with Lawton has agreed to freely license the painting and the painting itself does not appear old enough for {{PD-Art}} if the date given in the description is correct. There may also be a problem because the file shows the painting in a frame which may make the frame a 3D-work per COM:PD-Art#This does not apply to photographs of 3D works of art requiring another copyright. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The above also applies to File:Spring Fever.tif -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File was uploaded as "own work", but it is almost certainly not since the painter en:Florian K. Lawton died in 2011.[fklfoundation.org The Florian K. Lawton Foundation] seems to acting on behalf of Lawton and his heirs, and the foundation is selling some of his work online; therefore, so I don't think they'd want to have any of his work released under a free license. Moreover, there is no evidence provided that anyone associated with Lawton has agreed to freely license the painting and the painting itself does not appear old enough for {{PD-Art}} if the date given in the description is correct. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- The above also applies to File:Quiet Pool Hunting Valley, Ohio American Museum of Fly Fishing Manchester VT.jpg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
File uploaded as "own work", but it seems unlikely to be such. Exif data shows this to be most likely a photo taken by the uploader, but the original work almost certainly was created by someone else. The photo itself seems to be a mere mechanical reproduction of the original ad, but it's clear if the original work is still under copyright protection. So, unless the original work can be verified to be clearly in the public domain or to have been released under a free license, I think the file should be deleted per COM:PCP. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: Ads appearing in periodicals were not covered by the periodical's general copyright notice. They had to have their own notice, which was very rarely included. It is even less likely that the copyright was renewed as required in 1974. I think we can safely keep this. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Image is highly unlikely user's own work, especially given it is a screen-captured crop of original image, found on Gettyimages.com Livelikemusic (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Peter D. Gerakaris - Tropicalia - Rouge Mural Vignette - Cornell Tech partial installation.jpg
[edit]
Uploader claims to have received the file from the author, but any permission is missing. Speravir 04:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Speravir I did receive the file from the author and can update the permission as needed. This is the first round of files that I've uploaded to WikiCommons so it's more than likely a user error on my part. Could you please tell me what type of permission is missing or reference the appropriate info page? Also, I recently requested to change the file name so I'm not sure if this altered the permission info in some way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codybousc (talk • contribs) 03:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC) (UTC)
- @Codybousc: To cite myself (you can read this already on your user talk page): “Please, read carefully Commons:OTRS. When you have started this process you can add
{{subst:OP}}to the file description, see in Template:OTRS pending.” — Speravir – 23:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No evidence for non-renewal, and the uploader does not appear to have attempted to identify the original publication in order to attempt a renewal search. The image was previously on the English Wikipedia en:File:G.-David-Schine_1954.jpg as fair use, and deleted there as unused after it's transfer there.
The image is at the Library of Congress, here, where it is explicitly marked as an Associated Press photograph (No. 1525) of unclear copyright status. The statement at http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/155_wide.html is relevant. We cannot assume non-renewal. The image should be returned to the English Wikipedia as fair use, unless it's non-renewal can be verified. - Reventtalk 05:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- How do you prove a negative? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The way to 'prove' non-renewal is to find the initial registration, and then check the appropriate years for a renewal entry in the CCE. Unfortunately, since it's typically impossible to identify the original registration for images simply from the catalog listing, it's generally not possible. - Reventtalk 08:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- That assumes it was initially registered, the license reads: "there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed". There may have been no initial registration. Looking at the Bain collection, there is only a handful where there was an anticipated aftermarket, and they were marked for copyright. My searches have turned up nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): If the image was not originally copyrighted, then 'not renewed' would be the wrong license tag anyhow. The point here is that we seem to have no indication if it was, or was not, copyrighted or renewed. You appear to have taken the image from an online source that gives no information but the subject's name, and the LoC (who have a copy) essentially say they don't know.
- BTW, I accidentally gave the wrong link.... the image is https://www.loc.gov/item/2001696205/, and AP #1524, not 1525 as I previously said. - Reventtalk 08:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Copyright renewals from 1978 on are in the USCO database which is easily searched. This would have required renewal in 1982 or, possibly, later. There are only 61 entries containing the word "Schine", and this isn;t any of them, so there cannot have been a renewal. While similar searches for renewals before 1978 are time consuming, those like this take all of a minute. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded for a speedily deleted article en:Fixertrope. Used as a logo of the band, but probably cut from some other image (painting). Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
editor uploading the image claims to be an employee, appears unlikely it is their own work, appears copyrighted on http://www.shalby.org Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:57, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No proper CC-BY license Assianir (talk) 07:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: We cannot keep MacFound images. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:58, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The own work affirmation seems false. Looks like the scan of either a poster or the cover of a brochure edited by VfL Bochum. —Andrei S. Talk 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete the original Flickr source image https://www.flickr.com/photos/68818882@N06/10290390545 has a watermark that attributes this image to someone other than that Flickr user (shuttersail.com). It's unclear who owns the copyright and if it has been released freely. Ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 15:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Source page is marked (c), incompatible with license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: © Copyright NDTV. Ruthven (msg) 15:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No evidence of non-renewal, and taken from an online source. The year is not correct, this is a still for "Atom Man vs. Superman" from 1950.[5] Move to the English Wikipedia as fair use, unless evidence of PD status can be located. - Reventtalk 08:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Publicity stills were rarely copyrighted. This would have been renewed in 1978 or later. The USCO database does not show it. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Per COM:CHAR. The copyright on the Superman character does not expire until 2034. Nosferattus (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Keep There can't be a copyright on a picture of a man wearing a T-shirt with a S, since the logo itself is too simple to have a copyright. Yann (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: Then how do we all recognize this image as "Superman"? Clearly it is more than a man in a T-shirt with an S. Nosferattus (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- What is your opinion of File:1951Superman002.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is a complex issue with competing arguments made in United States courts. Do the "character rights" allow claw back from the public domain of existing images, or do character rights prevent new media from being created that depicts aspects of the character that only appear in works that are still under an active copyright. For instance Superman has superpowers that were not written into the character until much later than the character's first publication on April 18, 1938. These issues will be more in the news in January when the first images of Mickey Mouse, from Steamboat Willie, enter the public domain. Remember that copyright was extended to 95 years in the Mickey Mouse Protection Act on 1998. --RAN (talk) 22:21, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is well-settled jurisprudence in the United States:
- Siegel v. Warner Bros (2009)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. (1995)
- DC Comics v. Mark Towle (2013)
- Warner Bros. v. AVELA (2011)
- If this image only depicted aspects of Superman that were public domain, it would be a public domain image, but there are no aspects of Superman that are public domain yet. Nosferattus (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- This is well-settled jurisprudence in the United States:
- You are mixing up several concepts. It is not allowed to create a movie or a book or a cartoon with Superman, but that's equivalent to a trademark. You can't copyright the idea of Superman, and you can't copyright simple things, like a T-shirt and File:Superman logo 1940.png. Yann (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: No I'm not mixing up several concepts. This is about copyrights, not trademarks, specifically character copyrights. And I'm not talking about the "idea" of Superman, I'm talking about an actual depiction of Superman: A white, clean-cut, muscular man with black hair curling in the front, wearing tights with the Superman logo on it and a cape. That combination of characteristics constitutes a creative work that is copyrighted (even if the Superman logo itself is too simple to be copyrighted). I guarantee the Columbia Pictures film serial had to pay a copyright licensing fee (as well as trademark licensing) to whoever created Superman. If they didn't they would have been sued just like Honda Motor Company was for using a James Bond-like character in an advertisement (under copyright, not trademark). Nosferattus (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Below is a quick summary of the settled United States case law: --RAN (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Yann: No I'm not mixing up several concepts. This is about copyrights, not trademarks, specifically character copyrights. And I'm not talking about the "idea" of Superman, I'm talking about an actual depiction of Superman: A white, clean-cut, muscular man with black hair curling in the front, wearing tights with the Superman logo on it and a cape. That combination of characteristics constitutes a creative work that is copyrighted (even if the Superman logo itself is too simple to be copyrighted). I guarantee the Columbia Pictures film serial had to pay a copyright licensing fee (as well as trademark licensing) to whoever created Superman. If they didn't they would have been sued just like Honda Motor Company was for using a James Bond-like character in an advertisement (under copyright, not trademark). Nosferattus (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- You are mixing up several concepts. It is not allowed to create a movie or a book or a cartoon with Superman, but that's equivalent to a trademark. You can't copyright the idea of Superman, and you can't copyright simple things, like a T-shirt and File:Superman logo 1940.png. Yann (talk) 23:18, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
- Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. v. American Honda Motor Co. involved Honda using a knock-off version of a James Bond like character in an advertisement. The James Bond movies were under an active copyright. It does not involve clawing back expired copyrights from images that have lapsed into the public domain. It is more about how close you can be to a copyrighted character without infringing that copyright. It was ruled not a parody, which would have been fair use. --RAN (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- This case is absolutely applicable. No depiction of Superman or James Bond has ever been public domain, as both of the characters are validly copyrighted from their initial depictions. See discussion at Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2018/09#Donald Duck in The Spirit of '43 for a similar situation. Nosferattus (talk) 07:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Incorrect per Warner Bros. v. AVELA "the scope of the film copyright covers all visual depictions of the characters, except for any aspects of the characters that were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials." Those publicity images released into the public domain by the studios are in fact public domain. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- DC Comics v. Mark Towle involved selling an unlicensed replica of the Batmobile designed by Dean Jeffries. It does not involve clawing back expired copyrights from images that have lapsed into the public domain. It is more about selling unlicensed merchandise. --RAN (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Siegel v. Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. was about who owned the Superman character and is more about contract law. Siegel believed he still retained some rights to the Superman character he created and Warner Bros. argued it was a pure "work-for-hire". It does not involve clawing back expired copyrights from images that have lapsed into the public domain. --RAN (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Arguing that this image is public domain because no case law applies to it unless it is a case about a public domain image is a tautological argument. Nosferattus (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- No silly! That is exactly how United States law works. We use existing law until overturned by a higher court, or a new precedence is made in case law. We apply current copyright law concerning publicity stills that were put into the public domain by the creators by not including a copyright symbol and the year. Registration and renewal affected images, to some degree, all the way up until 1989. Film and television companies wanted the images reproduced as broadly as possible without having to pay advertising dollars, so they distributed the images without a copyright so that they would be reproduced in newspapers and magazines. If newspapers and magazines had to confirm copyright status or pay a licensing fee, they would not reproduce the images. They would expect to be paid in advertising dollars. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. --RAN (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Arguing that this image is public domain because no case law applies to it unless it is a case about a public domain image is a tautological argument. Nosferattus (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Warner Bros. v. AVELA is the only relevant one, it involved taking the images from the public domain publicity stills and selling t-shirts with characters cut and pasted from those public domain publicity stills. The t-shirt company combined the public domain images with the "character’s signature phrase from the [still under active copyright] movie". "the scope of the film copyright covers all visual depictions of the characters, except for any aspects of the characters that were injected into the public domain by the publicity materials." This is the exact opposite of what you are arguing. --RAN (talk) 04:55, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The "publicity materials" in Warner Bros. v. AVELA were all published before the first copyrighted appearances of those characters, so yes, in those cases aspects of the characters were injected into the public domain. If the first appearance of a character is in a validly copyrighted work, all subsequence appearances of that character are copyrighted until the copyright of the initial work expires, even if those works are otherwise in the public domain. There is no such thing as "clawing back" any copyrights. Either the character is validly copyrighted or it isn't. And if it is validly copyrighted, any derivatives are also subject to those copyrights even if the specific depiction would otherwise be public domain. Please read the actual court cases if you don't believe me. Nosferattus (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the references. The key word in this court case is "extracted". As I said, it is not allowed to use the representation of the character somewhere else. However the original material remains in the public domain. That's exactly what our pictures are here. Otherwise, if we follow your argument, we will need to delete images such as File:The Wizard of Oz Margaret Hamilton Judy Garland 1939.jpg. Yann (talk) 09:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think the key word was "combined". The extracted images were combined with active copyrighted catchphrases that only appeared in the film, and did not appear in the public domain publicity stills, like "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore." Same with Superman, we can't combine the images with phrases or superpowers that only appear in the active copyrighted films and television series to create a new work,. We cannot add "Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!" to the public domain image. Also read the Sherlock Holmes versus Enola Holmes debate. The first Sherlock Holmes stories are public domain but some aspects of the character only appear in later works that are still under an active copyright. All these cases involve creating a new work that uses aspects of a character that only appear in an active copyrighted work. It does not involve clawing back expired copyrights from images that have lapsed into the public domain. We also have trademark issues that are related, Disney has trademarked Steamboat Willie as their 100th anniversary logo. You can't misrepresent a trademark. A logo may be in the public domain, but I am limited in how I reuse it, I cannot misrepresent the company, for instance by implying the company endorses or sponsors me, by adding it to my user page in a way that misrepresents the company. We also have restrictions on other images we host called "personality rights". There are also local restrictions on reuse of images of royals under Lèse-majesté laws. I see no legal reason why these public domain publicity stills need to be deleted, and those deleted in the last debate should be restored. --RAN (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Yes, but in cases such as logos and personality rights, we are talking about non-copyright restrictions. Here we are talking about copyright restrictions. In particular, the creation of derivatives is extremely restricted and legally perilous for reusers. The closest analogy is probably de minimus, but the restrictions here are more severe and more likely to result in being sued. If we are going to host such images on Commons (which I don't think is a good idea), they should at the very least carry prominent warnings. Nosferattus (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Nosferattus: There is already a warning. See {{Costume}}. Yann (talk) 07:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: I would appreciate your opinion in this discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed that the Warner vs Avela is really the only relevant case among those cited, and it has lots of guidance, though not sure there is something directly on point. They do note there is a "spectrum" of character copyrightability, and the category of cartoon characters often is cited as the paradigm of distinctiveness. Publicity materials published before the films were not enough to establish a character copyright (or their visual aspects, in the case of Gone with the Wind and The Wizard of Oz, which were films based on books). The publicity materials, which all came out before the movies, were therefore not derivative of anything and were public domain. The movies (and first short film, for Tom and Jerry) established the characters. However, with respect to Gone with the Wind, the publicity material images are far from the cartoon-character end of the spectrum of character copyrightability. There is nothing consistent and distinctive about the publicity material images of Vivian Leigh as Scarlett O’Hara and Clark Gable as Rhett Butler. They certainly lack any cartoonishly unique physical attributes, and neither one is shown in a consistent, unique outfit and hairstyle [...] As a result, the district court correctly held that the publicity material images for Gone with the Wind are no more than “pictures of the actors in costume.”. They also note The characters in The Wizard of Oz lie closer to the cartoon-character end of the spectrum. There are many stylized aspects to the visual appearances of Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Cowardly Lion, and they perhaps might be considered as live-action representations of cartoon characters. They note however that the publicity materials did not consistently show those visual aspects, so there was no visual aspect of a character copyright created, and so they did not inject the characters into the public domain. But... they also ruled that Like the juxtaposition of an image and a phrase, a composite work combining two or more separate public-domain images (such as Judy Garland as Dorothy combined with an image of the Emerald City) also adds a new increment of expression of the film character that was not present in the separate images. Accordingly, products combining extracts from the public domain materials in a new arrangement infringe the copyright in the corresponding film. So it doesn't take much to still infringe, even using a PD publicity photo. That is not directly an issue here though.
- In this case, we have a character that was previously established by a comic. In the court case, they were characters created by books, so there were no big visual aspects yet (and the Wizard of Oz book was public domain), so those aspects had not yet been created. In the court case, only the Tom and Jerry part involved material created after the visual aspects of the character was created, and all being drawings they were all derivative. The court case does not directly address when a live-action photo is derivative of a drawn character. The Gone with the Wind publicity material was not derivative of the book characters; they were just photos of actors in costume. So, this could simply be a photo of an actor in costume. It is certainly not derivative of any aspects of the character created by the film. On the other hand, the S symbol and hair styling do seem evocative of the comic book character. The S symbol by itself is probably not copyrightable, neither would be a hairstyle, but ... given the juxtaposition argument above, they are certainly two elements trying to conjure up the comic book character. On the other hand, we do allow cosplay photos -- where someone licensed the costume, and would expect people to wear it. Is this different? Certainly in any commercial setting there are obvious trademark issues, which were also part of the Warner v Avela ruling. The copyright is a closer call. Seems to me that logo became settled in 1940 or so representations, so at worst undelete in 2036, when those particular visual aspects of the character would be PD. It feels like a derivative work in some ways, but similar to cosplay. On the other hand, this is not a photo of "real life" and someone wearing an expected costume. Most of the character copyright of Superman is in the details of his story, but the trademarkable logo certainly evokes that character. Is that enough for copyright infringement too? Might be. The Gone with the Wind photos mention the lack of "cartoonishly unique physical attributes", but those may exist here. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I would like trying to resume and precise what you write. Since the picture itself is in the public domain, and that the details of the character can't be under a copyright (simple logo + a muscular man with a sweatshirt), how is this different than cosplay (there is already the {{Costume}} in the file description?) I agree that derivative works of this would be very restricted, but there are plenty of cases like this on Commons (copyrighted works of art in FoP countries, de minimis cases, etc.). If we can't have this on Commons, we would need to delete all of Category:Superman clothing, and many many more files with a similar issue. Yann (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree that everything in Category:Superman clothing would have to be deleted, but everything in Category:Files depicting Superman would have to be deleted. Although the distinction between "people wearing Superman clothing" and "people actually depicting Superman" is subtle, I think it is a meaningful difference in the case of character copyrights. It also affects the potential commercial impact of reuse and thus the likelihood of being sued. Nosferattus (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference. Can you explain, preferably with legal backing? Yann (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- The WMF does not get sued for hosting copyrighted images, they get a takedown notice, and the WMF lawyers decide whether to remove or keep, and then they post their ruling. We have a list of all the images involved and the WMF ruling. --RAN (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm talking about reusers, not the WMF. Reusers don't have the benefit of the DMCA safe-harbor provisions. Nosferattus (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- The WMF does not get sued for hosting copyrighted images, they get a takedown notice, and the WMF lawyers decide whether to remove or keep, and then they post their ruling. We have a list of all the images involved and the WMF ruling. --RAN (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see any difference. Can you explain, preferably with legal backing? Yann (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I don't agree that everything in Category:Superman clothing would have to be deleted, but everything in Category:Files depicting Superman would have to be deleted. Although the distinction between "people wearing Superman clothing" and "people actually depicting Superman" is subtle, I think it is a meaningful difference in the case of character copyrights. It also affects the potential commercial impact of reuse and thus the likelihood of being sued. Nosferattus (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg: Thanks for the detailed explanation. I would like trying to resume and precise what you write. Since the picture itself is in the public domain, and that the details of the character can't be under a copyright (simple logo + a muscular man with a sweatshirt), how is this different than cosplay (there is already the {{Costume}} in the file description?) I agree that derivative works of this would be very restricted, but there are plenty of cases like this on Commons (copyrighted works of art in FoP countries, de minimis cases, etc.). If we can't have this on Commons, we would need to delete all of Category:Superman clothing, and many many more files with a similar issue. Yann (talk) 08:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
- I imagine any downstream user must be cautious about every image that they reuse. That is why the New York Times licenses image from Almy and Getty Images, even though Commons has a copy of the historic image. --RAN (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
- I am not against having this decided by the WMF lawyers, however they usually only get involved once we receive a takedown notice. You can keep track of the WMF's DMCA takedown decisions here and whether they were kept or deleted, there are only six in the past two years: Commons:Office actions/DMCA notices--RAN (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion,as explained above, and as per previous DR. --Yann (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
private and family life infringement (not a public medical source or any published source at all) NeoLexx (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a photo of a personally identifiable dead body (Rustem Slobodin, 1959) from a criminal case. The case was not officially published nor photos from it used for some common illustrative reasons. My position is that it should be deleted unless and if we have a clear permission granted from his relatives. I might be wrong but a similar approach was for medical examitations photos (unless non-identifiable from a reputable medical source). --NeoLexx (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete The image background: Rustem Slobodin with 8 fellow ski hikers died between February 1 and 2, 1959 near of Kholat Syakhl mountain at North Ural after they leave their tent for an unknown reason. The photo was taken in morgue before Rustem body autopsy. Forensic pathologist found no fatal injures and stated that the main cause of Rustem death was hypothermia. The case was investigated by soviet authorities. They found no crime signs (including no signs of other people or any animals on the scene) so the case was closed as contained no element of a crime. The cause of hikers death was stated as "a natural force the hikers can't resist". The case file was archived and never officially published (current Russian law "№ 125-ФЗ" restricts unauthorized persons access to the file until 2034). Despite of this, 40 years after the incident (known as "Dyatlov pass incident" by the hikers team leader last name) some amateur "investigators" appear pretending that, the soviet authorities was wrong or even intentionally hide the truth. They speculate for years about the incident to attract people and media attention, thinking up many "versions", mostly fantastic. They published some info from the archived case file, including the photo of Rustem without his relatives permission. The photo itself has no science or educational value. I think, it must be deleted due to moral issues.--Yellow Horror (talk) 09:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: I don't see a moral issue here. However, I see a copyright issue -- it is a 1959 image from a photographer whose name could be found. It is not clear that it is covered by the tag in use. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/68/590x/gerwen-448162.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Aheadoftime (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF.
- File:Saosin from Vans Warped Tour 2009.jpg
- File:Weezer at BoxWorks 2012 at Bill Graham Civic Center.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.pba.com.my/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/HAJI-MOD-RASHID.jpg.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
copyrighted logo still in use Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This image is the first that comes up using Google Sheets when students search for "constellation". It is not appropriate in a school setting. 165.138.236.2 16:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion - this is a DR for the DR, not the underlying file, which has been deleted. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is contradictory the watermark of copyright belongint to Pete DeVries and/or editor of Insects of Wisconsin with the license tag added that does not document explicit revocation of copyright. It seems to be veiled copyright infringement. Bestiasonica (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately the sourcepage http://lod.geospecies.org/ses/pZDDU.html is gone. But obviously the hole site http://lod.geospecies.org/ is CC-by-SA. --Itu (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Itu. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted book cover // Gikü said done Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:28 (UTC) 17:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is contradictory the watermark of copyright belongint to Pete DeVries and/or editor of Insects of Wisconsin with the license tag added that does not document explicit revocation of copyright. It seems to be veiled copyright infringement. Bestiasonica (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- related dr here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Culex_pipiens_Pete_DeVries.jpg . Keep the whole site is cc-by-sa. Amada44 talk to me 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Bestiasonica, you should open just one DR-page for all files with identical rationale for the request. --Itu (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faranjuned (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:COPYVIOs. No indication of user's own work on this gallery of photos of men, covers of modern books, insides of other books, what looks like six pages of school homework, and images obviously photocopied, scanned and uploaded to Commons.
- File:فیضؔ بہرائچی.jpg
- File:دلی مبارکباد.jpg
- File:Bls-logo.png
- File:Shariq Rabbani news.jpg
- File:Book released programme by Shariq Rabbani.jpg
- File:Shariq rabbani.jpg
- File:Novel Gardish e Ayyam by Shariq Rabbani.jpg
- File:ٖFiqr wa Fan by Shariq Rabbani.jpg
- File:Ahsasat-E-Faiz.jpg
- File:Haji Shafiullah Shafi Bahraichi news in hindustan.jpg
- File:Latif book first page.jpg
- File:Latif book cover.jpg
- File:مولانا قاری عبداللّطیف لطیفؔ بہرائچی.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat5.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat4.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat3.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat2.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat1.jpg
- File:Hasnain.khat.jpg
- File:Cover of book yaadoon ki saughat by faraz hamidi and translate by Mohammad Hasnain.jpg
- File:Mohammad Hasnain.jpg
- File:Obaid with hamid ansari.jpg
- File:Seminar obaid ghazipur.jpg
- File:Obaidur Rahman Receiving an award.jpg
- File:Obaid.jpg
- File:Izhar warsi.jpg
- File:Shafi-bahraichi color photo.jpg
- File:Wasfi.bahraichi01.jpg
- File:Shafi bahraichi.jpg
- File:Mazar of Syed Salar Masoud Ghazi Bahraich.jpg
- File:ClockTower-Bahraich-By Faranjuned.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faranjuned (talk · contribs)
[edit]This group of images contains posters & book covers as well as a series of re-photographed portraits, which are derivative works, not own work of uploader.
- File:Taabishen By Anjum Siddiqui.jpg
- File:Waqar Ahmad Shah.jpg
- File:Doobte Nagmaat By Gareeb Bahraichi .jpg
- File:Rubab Sayda.jpg
- File:Gareeb Bahraichi.jpg
- File:Wasiful Qadri 2.jpg
- File:Shauq-bahraichi.jpg
- File:Afkaar e wasfi cover front 02.jpg
- File:Afkaar e wasfi cover front 01.jpg
- File:Wasfi Bahraichi.jpg
- File:Qamar Rais Bahraichi.jpg
- File:Rafi Ahmad Kidwai.jpg
- File:Aiman Chughtai Nanparvi.jpg
- File:WasifUl Qadri.jpg
- File:NaeemUllah Khayali.jpg
- File:Shafi Bahraichi color photo.jpg
- File:Shafi Bahraichi.jpg
- File:Shriq Rabbani book 2.jpg
- File:Shriq Rabbani book 1.jpg
- File:Mahfooz-ur-rahman-naami.jpg
- File:Madarij-Ul-Khair by NaimUllah Khayali.jpg
- File:Beyan Khairul Bashar.jpg
- File:Mamulat-E-Khair.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Ellin Beltz Dear Sir All Photographs are re-photographed portrait with permission by Copholders like his son aur family members if any copyright holder was expaire ,what i need for not deletion these photos .Thanks --Faranjuned (talk) 06:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - if you are really the copyright holder, which is very improbable, please contact OTRS. --Jcb (talk) 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Faranjuned (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Syed Zargham Haider.jpg
- File:Khawaja Khalil Ahmad Shah.jpg
- File:Syed Asghar Mehdi Nazmi.jpg
- File:Salamat Ullah Beg.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
reveals personal information that I would no longer like to be public HcgRandon (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unused personal photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
It says it is a self portrait but uploader User:Klok kaos says he is not Rubel?? Theroadislong (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not Dr. Rubel and that's easily proven.
That said, yes, it is a self portrait that was taken by him, he is a photographer with his own website for photography and I was given explicit permissions to use that however I choose (with the intent of putting it in the article), thereby making me the owner of it.
You know, you can just communicate effectively with me about concerns you have.
It's completely reasonable to ask and talk and discuss rather than accuse repeatedly. I get the feeling a lot of the time that you seem to have a personal issue with me making contributions because you don't talk to me about them but instead try to tear them down constantly without ever asking me what is going on. I'm sure this zealous approach has it's advantages, but from a social perspective it's very rude and comes off abusive.
Klok kaos (talk) 23:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Requires a free license from the actual photographer using OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor (Nokia C3) quality, probably randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Normal photo of the pump house. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mass-upload of panoramio streams of very poor quality, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: unusable low quality, many better photos of horses available. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
mass-upload of panoramio streams of very poor quality, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: unusable low quality, many alternatives available. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope; grainy but acceptable quality. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the road. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the saw mill. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Normal photo of the canal. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Normal photo of the river. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of poor quality, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the river (flora of the river). COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine Dogad75 (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in Ukraine Dogad75 (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope RA0808 (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, rather doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: acceptable quality, in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Tony Garnier died in 1948 + murals / No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Tony Garnier died in 1948 Benoît Prieur (d) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Tony Garnier died in 1948 Benoît Prieur (d) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Tony Garnier died in 1948 Benoît Prieur (d) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Tony Garnier died in 1948 Benoît Prieur (d) 20:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
No FoP in France Benoît Prieur (d) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Species ID is wrong. This is Tachinidae; Rutilia spp. (native to Australia) 220.237.96.81 20:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep If the file name is incorrect, renaming is the proper remedy. There is no need to delete this decent photograph. De728631 (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: Correct the description and categorization, rename the file, delete nothing. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep: As above, of course. Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 07:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Everything here moved to Category:Wikipedia Day 2017 - duplicate category Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Empty category. --Kaulder (contribs | talk) 14:26, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AgustinArgentina (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:Korvettenkapitän Eitel-Friedrich Kentrat.jpg
- File:Kapitänleutnant Alfred Eick.jpg
- File:Oberstleutnant Johannes Lutz.JPG
- File:Major Hans Guhr.jpg
These images were all uploaded by User:AgustinArgentina. I believe they should be deleted because the licensing information states "own work" which is highly doubtful for these historic photographs from the World War II era. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg){kind=link}
_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
I created this image and did not give anyone permission to post it on Wikimedia. Mitchell Grafton 24.236.65.192 23:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg){kind=link}
Kept: We do not accept deletion requests from anonymous IP users. Please send a message using OTRS. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
_-The_Girl_With_The_Pearl_Earring_(1665).jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, regardless taken with DSLR, rather doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo (general view) of the bridge. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the river. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:35, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: poor composition, unremarkable. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:36, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions are also asked ... Roland zh (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Normal photo of the river. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Only one photo in Commons of the St.sebastians church in Ernakulam. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 07:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: not great but in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:38, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of very bad quality, hence, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the port terminal. COM:EDUSE for infobox or thumb in article. --Insider (talk) 06:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:39, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather personal interest (family album), obviously personality rights isusses, hence, missing educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - are there other opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Acceptable photo of the river. COM:EDUSE --Insider (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in scope as per User:Insider (although I disagree with this one). P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, although taken with a DSRL, rather doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unusable low quality. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Document © Veritas Trizek from FR 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Hopelessly out of focus, plenty of alternatives in the category. Retired electrician (talk) 21:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, utterly unremarkable greenery. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. Tokumeigakarinoaoshima (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
New user said that he or she is the copyright holder, but credited Nuttall himself as creator of the file. There is no proof or verification that the user is Nuttall. Images uploaded to Twitter are not assumed to be public domain, to the best of my knowledge. Valentina Cardoso (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Derivative work. G I Chandor (talk) 23:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:33, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
promotion pic Daphne Lantier 23:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not a textlogo or "PD ineligible". 77.5.130.96 09:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Recent counter-advertisment poster against the company E. Leclerc. The drawing and image is probably copyrighted. Tangopaso (talk) 09:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: derivative. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
request by uploader Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination, recent upload. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Depicted persons are not identified. Google translates, that one of them is Anwar bin Ali bin Fahd, but he is not mentioned in en.wiki. I think, that the file is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 12:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, promotional logo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:50, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
affected File:House of Mr.M.V.John Manjaly,Chengal,Kalady. - panoramio.jpg and File:House of George Manjaly,Chengal,Kalady - panoramio.jpg: mass-upload of panoramio streams of obviously personal interest (family album), , but also personality rights isusses, hence, missing educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - other opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: homes are usually in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
affected File:House of Mr.M.V.John Manjaly,Chengal,Kalady. - panoramio.jpg and File:House of George Manjaly,Chengal,Kalady - panoramio.jpg: mass-upload of panoramio streams of obviously personal interest (family album), , but also personality rights isusses, hence, missing educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - other opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: homes are usually in scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, obviously randomly taken from car/bus etc, doubtful educational usefulness, file not in use at Wikimedia projects, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, utterly unremarkable greenery. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
mass-upload of panoramio streams of rather poor quality, although taken with a DLSR completely out of focus, hence no educational usefulness and out of scope Wikimedia Commons - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It might be the best file in Category:Sree Sankara Bridge.199.119.232.216 07:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
- or at least one of the better ones.199.119.232.216 07:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Unusable low quality, and certainly not one of the best. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unused single-file upload since October 2015, but also potentially personality rights isusses and doubtful educational usefulness, hence out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Web link should be enough for purpose of discussion. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://cdn.pagina24.com.mx/content/images/2016/09/28/foraneo/e1.jpg. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted photo - http://www.infomusic.ro/artist/tudor-gheorghe/ // Gikü said done Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:30 (UTC) 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
File:Cabral-despre-vacanta-extrema-petrecuta-in-africa-ce-a-declarat-gazda-show-ului-sunt-celebru-scoate-ma.jpg
[edit]
Copyright violation - http://fermavedetelor.protv.ro/stiri/pro-tv-lanseaza-super-show-ul-verii-ldquo-traiec-te-c-i-vara-rdquo.html // Gikü said done Wednesday, 18 January 2017 17:31 (UTC) 17:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
unlikely to be own work, of three iamges uploaded one was deleted as copyvio, I identified the second as another copyvio so this is most likely just another copyvio Denniss (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete low resolution web type images of which several versions are found online by tineye, so the Flickr user is obviously not the copyright holder Ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Delete low resolution web type images of which several versions are found online by tineye, so the Flickr user is obviously not the copyright holder. Ww2censor (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work from https://philippehahn.com/business-fotografie-portraits-unternehmensfotografie/ Trizek from FR 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted work from https://philippehahn.com/photographe-corporate-portraits-entreprise-businessportraits-unternehmensfotografie/ Trizek from FR 21:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from here. ~Cybularny Speak? 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Seems to be copied from here. ~Cybularny Speak? 22:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work El Funcionario (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Very likely an unfree image. The same uploader claimed that the image File:Charles-Taylor 2112061b.jpg was his own work, but in fact it was a copyrighted image released by Getty Images. So, it's quite hard to believe that this image would be his own work either. Nironen (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work', as imho potentially non-free content: rather thumbnail format and missing EXIF data to verify origin - your opinions ? Roland zh (talk) 23:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, black band down side showed this was copied. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Kiloo Games logo.svg Texniths (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Image is of Lou Costello, not Bud Abbott (Abbott is cropped out to the left). There is no evidence given for non-renewal. The LA Times credits Universal Pictures, and most other sources credit them. The image should be moved to the English Wikipedia as fair use. - Reventtalk 10:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Source is FindAGrave, at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=11216118 where there is absolutely no evidence of the date. The image is also used, by the uploader, in the WRONG ARTICLE. Unless some indication of the actual date is found, it cannot be on Commons,
If used in the correct article, it would be usable on the English Wikipedia under fair use. - Reventtalk 12:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Given source is pinterest. Source given by pinterest is https://quitecontinental.net/2011/08/22/style-icons-gloria-vanderbilt-and-gertrude-vanderbilt-whitney/ where there is absolutely no indication that this image is in the public domain. The claim that it was not renewed appears to be completely made up. - Reventtalk 12:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Taken from a copyrighted website. Date appears to be an absolute guess. No evidence of contemporaneous publication or registration, much less that a copyright renewal search was done. Can be transferred to the English Wikipedia as fair use. - Reventtalk 12:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
possible Copyvio, all other uploads of this user were already deleted (just search for Bill Keenan) Xgeorg (talk) 14:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Not sure of license Magaraba (talk) 14:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, the foundation would have to release via OTRS. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
There is copyright violation from official website. It doesn't write appropriate author name. It originate from this page. [6] 著作権の侵害。適切な作成者の名前を記載していない。該当のページより転載。なお、Wikipediaの記事は既に削除依頼に提出してあります。 遡雨祈胡 (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete It can be applied speedy delete. I added {{Copyvio}} on this page. I omitted notifying the uploader since it has already done by submitter.--Kkairri (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
We have OTRS permission from BollywoodHungama.com for only the photos taken at parties and events. This image unfortunately is taken on the set of a movie. Sreejith K (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: BH's banned list includes "photos copyrighted by other websites", but I could not find the image on any other website while the "allowed" list includes "attributed to the Bollywood Hungama website". The banned list also does not mention that set photos are not allowed. On the image's source page, a tag reads "BH-On the sets", while the "allowed" list by BH includes "taken by a Bollywood Hungama photographer". Does all this save the image from deletion? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- These both files are other versions of File:Zweirad-Industrie-Verband logo.svg. That one is used in an article, but the uploader announced to load up a new version soon. Have a look at it's diskussion too: File talk:Zweirad-Industrie-Verband logo.svg--ProfessorX (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation as per http://lineageos.org/legal/. Not sure if it meets the threshold of originality. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. --Yann (talk) 21:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted document from the French governement Trizek from FR 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted logo. Trizek from FR 21:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
carte tronquée Nacermek (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Cette carte ne représente pas le Maroc dans toutes ses frontières. 195.36.239.236 08:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Same request as last year. The situation has not changed since. Ydecreux (talk) 12:21, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- The "missing part" has not been recognised as belonging to Morocco by any country except Morocco. Neither is it recognised as belonging to another country or as an autonomous territory. This unclear situation is depicted by the dotted line in the South part of the map. Besides, this map is perfect to locate any large Moroccan city and as such is useful. Ydecreux (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
- Keep of course, per Ydecreux, and still (and will be) in use. NNW 09:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Storkk (talk) 10:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Morocco isnot complteted with his sahara 105.188.66.36 23:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Same as usual. Tiring demands. Sting (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Senseless to discuss anything. NNW 07:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Use File:Morocco Western Sahara location map.png if you don't like this version. --Achim (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
la carte géographique du Maroc est erronée 160.179.58.194 05:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
- Keep Groundhog day. NNW 06:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: Use File:Morocco Western Sahara location map.png if you don't like this version. --Achim55 (talk) 12:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Caricata erroneamente: è già presente su Commons Emmepici (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Emmepici: potresti dire quel è l'altra versione presente su Commons per cortesia? Nel caso, usa il template {{duplicate}} per indicarla nella pagina. --Ruthven (msg) 16:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: not exact or scaled-down duplicate of File:Paul Balluriau Crépuscule 1897.jpg. Ruthven (msg) 20:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logos of questionable notability. Pitpisit (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination+above TOO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused aps. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I think that they are well in scope. What is problematic here, is the source (from which blank maps these are derived). --Ruthven (msg) 14:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: the first is out of scope, the two other maybe not but indeed the 3 has an unclear copyright statut. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This symbol is from the 20th century, see en:Khanda (Sikh symbol). No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. We have no indication that the copyright on this image would have expired. Jcb (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- While I can't find any direct evidence to the contrary, the symbol is included in Unicode (U+262C) since 1993, as well as many fonts. I don't believe either the Unicode consortium nor the font publishers would have included it had there been any question of its copyright status. If such a strict interpretation is the norm, I support deletion. Ktims (talk) 03:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The symbol is so widespread that I cannot imagine anyone having a copyright on it. It is used like a Hindu svastika or a Christian cross… --Superbenjamin (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Unicode (U+262C) symbol is different. Jcb (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- The symbol is so widespread that I cannot imagine anyone having a copyright on it. It is used like a Hindu svastika or a Christian cross… --Superbenjamin (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep: Disruptive and ridiculous nomination. Just a free variant of an (not too) old symbol. --Amitie 10g (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, as per Amitie 10g. --Yann (talk) 12:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Per previous nomination, no valid reason for speedy closure. You cannot base a premature closure on a random nonsense rant of Amitie 10g. Jcb (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nor Amitie 10g, neither Yann, has used a single word to explain why this would be a "free variant of an (not too) old symbol". Jcb (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment - identical File:Khanda.jpg has been deleted in the meantime for possible copyright issues - Jcb (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jcb's statement isn't even true. It was deleted because it was not used. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- See the deletion log. I know you disagree with the given deletion reason, but Jim did not revoke it when you complained about it at his user talk page. Jcb (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Jcb's statement isn't even true. It was deleted because it was not used. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep This is an SVG drawn by a known Commons contributor, so the license for this particular representation of the symbol should not be in doubt. It is stated to be a DW of the Unicode version, which is PD. So, I don't see where the copyright concern arises. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
- The thing is: I did look at the Unicode version, but it's quite different from this version, while 'Traced from scavenged bitmap', as stated in the upload log, also indicates that this is a DW, but not from the Unicode version. Jcb (talk) 17:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Close enough to the original (from unicode.org) for not having a new copyright. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
SIIMA 2014 were held at Kuala Lumpur and through various previous cases we have decided to not allow non-Indian location images from the source bollywoodhungama.com. Also refer Commons:Deletion requests/SIIMA images from bollywoodhungama. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - Seems it was taken in India (the press conference was held in Hyderabad), but higher resolution images are found elsewhere: [7] —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
![[7]](http://static.hamaraphotos.com/albums300_2012/wpw-20140818/hpse_fullsize__334084249_Shriya%20Saran,%20Rana%20Daggubati,%20Vidyut%20Jamwal%20at%20SIIMA%202014%20PRESS%20MEET%20at%20malaysia%20on%2017th%20Aug%202014%20(14)_53f1a6ac046ce.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per Vensatry. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:45, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
unsharp photo Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Possible copyright infringement. Terms of use of the symbol does not mention anything about copyright, and claim of free use not confirmed. Source website is All rights reserved.
著作権侵害のおそれ。利用規約に著作権に関する記載なく、自由利用できるとの主張が確認できません。元ウェブサイトはAll rights reserved。 朝彦 | asahiko (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Image is http://www.gettyimages.com/license/515326960 and appears likely to have been a MGM promotional photo from 1939. No evidence given for a failure to renew, and some FindAGrave contributor is not a reliable source for copyright status. - Reventtalk 10:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- It is impossible to show evidence of absence. If you show a renewal notice then we know it was renewed. I cannot show you that aliens, and gods and goddesses do not exist, but show me one, and you have proved that they exist. My search through the online renewal notices has come up with nothing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Please go read COM:EVID. If you do not have evidence to establish that a work is in the public domain, then you should not upload it to Commons. As I pointed out elsewhere, it is typically impossible to specifically identify registrations or renewals for photographs. Most acceptable uploads of PD images from this period rely on evidence that the work was published, at the time, without notice, and the vast majority of images from this time period simply cannot be uploaded to Commons. - Reventtalk 08:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's worth pointing out that a search of 'online renewal notices' for this would be useless anyhow. The USCO only has renewals since 1978 online (this would have been up for renewal about a decade earlier), and the database of earlier renewals at Stanford only contains books. Such a search requires consulting the actual Catalog of Copyright Entries for the relevant years, and is typically a waste of time for photographs since it's typically impossible to identify specific ones. - Reventtalk 08:42, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Correct source is http://collections.mcny.org/Collection/%5BYetta%20Zwerling.%5D-24UFQEELWOA.html (Mediawiki hates that url). No assertion is made there regarding the copyright status of the image, and there is no evidence for non-renewal. Image should be moved to the English Wikipedia as fair use. - Reventtalk 10:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The tag PD-NASA is inappropiate, because it is not solely created by NASA.
Mattias Malmer invested some creative work, so he owns a copyright, despite of using data from NASA (witch is in public domain, of course), and only non-commercial use is permitted: http://www.planetary.org/multimedia/space-images/venus/global-view-of-venus-from.html
Best regards --Fabian RRRR (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Maybe No FoP in Japan, for non-commercial use only. See also Commons:Freedom of panorama#Japan. Such image is not accepted on Commons. It should be transfered to local Wikipedia. For uploder, please provide who/when create the monument. Darklanlan (talk) 13:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Leider gibt es in Dänemark keine Panoramafreiheit für Schilder und andere grafische Werke, sondern nur für Gebäude. Diese Karte des Schlossparks ist originell genug, um urheberrechtlich geschützt zu sein. De728631 (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Dieses Wappen ist falsch. Siehe https://www.dettenheim.de/seite/220035/wappen.html Direktlink: https://fotos.verwaltungsportal.de/seitengenerator/gross/wappen_russheim.jpg BlueBreezeWiki (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
- neues Wappen hochgeladen - auf File:Wappen Russheim.png --Enslin (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Kept: new COA was uploaded. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Information states the two air-2-air photos are from www.l-39.com and taken by Marián Koňár, who one has to assume is not the uploader, given their claim on the photo of own work. It is unfortunate to find these files 9 years after being uploaded, and they have likely propagated across the net due to dubious PD status.
Американский папаша (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
From slideshow at www.interquestgroup.com/careers/locations-full/marylebone, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Part of this image is found at Interquest's website in slideshow, http://www.interquestgroup.com/careers/locations-full/canary-wharf suggesting this upload was copied from elsewhere in the Interquest website. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
affected File:St.Thomas Church,Malayattoor,Kerala,South India - panoramio (4).jpg and File:St.Thomas Church,Malayattoor,Kerala,South India - panoramio (5).jpg: not my usual field at Wikimedia Commons, but potentially copyright issues (probably late 20th-century murals], hence, DR started to verify by much more experienced Wikimedians, thx, Roland zh (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
affected File:St.Thomas Church,Malayattoor,Kerala,South India - panoramio (4).jpg and File:St.Thomas Church,Malayattoor,Kerala,South India - panoramio (5).jpg: not my usual field at Wikimedia Commons, but potentially copyright issues (probably late 20th-century murals], hence, DR started to verify by much more experienced Wikimedians, thx, Roland zh (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Taichi as no source (No source since) PD-textlogo? Yann (talk) 09:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: but even PD-textlogo files needs a source. --JuTa 16:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
