Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/05/22

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

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

You can visit the most recent archive here.

Archive
Archive
Archive May 22nd, 2017
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Angelababy2015.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation (see http://www.ebay.com/itm/2015-Running-Man-RUN-Angelababy-Baseball-Snapback-hat-outdoor-Unisex-cap/311395505245?_trksid=p2047675.c100012.m1985&_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D40130%26meid%3Dc92ec70f630145c7ab770ff1d6741b46%26pid%3D100012%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D2%26sd%3D262444137861) Jimjianghk (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Angelababy2016.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation (see http://www.zjstv.com/news/zjnews/201412/322814.html) Jimjianghk (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 06:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Agaricus nitidus

[edit]

This is an obsolete fungus name. The taxonavigation section (Agaricus) is inconsistent with the Synonyms section (Russula). The page is in Index Fungorum but not as a current name, and modern names should be used in the category tree.

This category would only cause confusion and errors. Russula nitida exists currently, and the name Amanita nitida has been used (as a possible synonym) but it is not clear what modern species it should mean. Strobilomyces (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Confirmed, added {{Invalid taxon category redirect}}. --Achim (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ariel Wolf portrait.jpg

[edit]

Unclear to me if this file has proper permissions from the copyright holders. Can some Hebrew speaker check the license and and add Template:LicenseReview if it is OK? Jarekt (talk) 14:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same with File:Ariel Wolf second portrait.jpg --Jarekt (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found the ticket Ticket#2012041310008911 and I added a valid OTRS permission to the 2 pictures. Hanay (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per user:Hanay. --Jarekt (talk) 16:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:VP MIKE PENCE.jpg

[edit]

Evident vandalism MarioFinale (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bandera De Chile.png

[edit]

The flag is not of Chile, it's of Texas. MarioFinale (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 19:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Autismo spinner.png

[edit]

Vandalism, MarioFinale (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 1-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 2-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 4-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 8-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 7-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 5-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 3-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 6-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 10-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 11-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:CODE E 9-12.webm

[edit]

Looks like a commercial Manga-movie; unlikely own work. -- Túrelio (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:صفحة NO OnpAne تشكركم للمتابعة.webm

[edit]

Seems to be copied from http://www.animedown.tv/ . -- Túrelio (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Speedy deleted as per COM:PRP – the uploader is long term WP0 abuser known of uploading copyrighted movies. --jdx Re: 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:الامتحان-الجهوي-السنة-الأولى-باكالوريا-جميع-الشعب-العلمية-مادة-التاريخ-والجغرافيا-الدورة-العادية-2014-جهة-طنجة-تطوان.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Wiki Zero abuse. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:David Cameron Number 10 official photo.jpg

[edit]

Per an email now lodged under [Ticket#: 2017052210014402] at OTRS, "government material e.g. Crown copyright and Crown owned copyright should not be re-used under a Creative Commons Licence." Commons is under a Creative Commons license. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: OGL licence is specifically designed to be compatible with the Creative Commons CC-BY licence per National Archive notice at http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/1/. --Nick (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note from original nominator, In the interests of having things straight, on reviewing this I've found that whilst the e-mail with the original enquiry (on an unrelated image), was logged under the mentioned OTRS ticket, the response in which the apparent incompatibility, noted above arose may not have been. Thusly the original nomination should have in fairness have referenced the response to the then logged e-mail. I'd like to apologise to the entire Wikimedia Community for this oversight and lapse of concentration, which was not intended.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

--- Procedural withdrawl : Concerns were noted that ALL the entries here were covered by earlier or later related DR's. Therefore there was no need for another DR for this category specifically. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Files in Category:Diagrams of supplementary plates for road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

* File:UK traffic sign 811.1.svg

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural withdrawl following a concern that most of these are duplicated in the DR's related to other categories. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Omid wiki82 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

NSFW, poor quality selfies, multiple copies of same image or nearly same image, poor lighting, not in use.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 09:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Omid wiki82 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of scope

Gbawden (talk) 14:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Femme nue allongée Bourgeois.jpg

[edit]

sexgggggggg 94.198.176.23 23:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Speedykept, as there was no valid reason for deletion. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Apiz 00 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyright film posters. No evidence that the uploader is the copyright owner or has permission to reuse them here.

DAJF (talk) 09:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:AG.ASHOK.gif

[edit]

unknown user Scorpion212 (talk) 06:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:{{subst:idw|File:AG.ASHOK.gif]]

File:AG.ASHOK.gif

[edit]

unknown user Scorpion212 (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:AG.ASHOK.gif

[edit]

{{Autotranslate|1=File:AG.ASHOK.gif|2=File:AG.ASHOK.gif|3=|base=Idw}} [[User:Scorpion212|Scorpion212]] ([[User talk:Scorpion212|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: missing information on source, author, etc. Ruthven (msg) 13:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:蚌埠龙子湖公园局部航拍.jpg

[edit]

Not a freely use file. The water print on the right down corner indicates that it was from a WeChat-based Media MNXANL (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:High Society 2 small.jpg

[edit]

Permission OTRS template leads to Ticket:2008121910022403 which seems to be unrelated to the image Jarekt (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep Actually the ticket is related to the photo of the clarinetist Edmond Hall. Maybe you've missed the attached PDF? --Ruthven (msg) 02:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per user:Ruthven (thanks for streightning me out). --Jarekt (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Short Titles Act 1896(ukpga 18960014 en).pdf

[edit]

The issue is the scans "Per an email now lodged under [Ticket#: 2017052210014402] at OTRS, "government material e.g. Crown copyright and Crown owned copyright should not be re-used under a Creative Commons Licence." Commons is under a Creative Commons license, as are many other Wikimedia projects. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will note however that the scans seem to be page for page identical to a fuller set of scans for the 1896 Public General Statutes, that are already on Wikimedia Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page scans are identical. WithdrawnShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files uploaded by Ferdos01 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Images under copyright (panini stickers, magazines covers...)

Arthur Crbz (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Unambiguos copyvios may use {{Copyvio}}. --Эlcobbola talk 22:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khudiakov , Ivan Alexandrovitch.jpg

[edit]

It's cropped photo of Nekrasov (File:Nekrasov.jpg). Sigwald (talk) 15:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:刘奇葆.jpg

[edit]

COM:COPYVIO Xinhua news photo with a PD-1923 tag on it. I don't think Color digital photography was a thing in 1923, nor that Xinhua existed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Daphne Lantier: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

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

File:郭金龙.jpg

[edit]

COM:COPYVIO, not created before January 1, 1923, modern digital news photograph. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Daphne Lantier: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

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

File:天卫十八.jpg

[edit]

COM:COPYVIO not published before January 1, 1923. Instead copied from 发现者 M. Holman, J.J. Kavelaars, B. Gladman, J.-M. Petit, H. Scholl 发现日期 1999 Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Daphne Lantier: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing

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

File:Planting at Company Bagh Okara - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

poor quality, blurry, datestamp Hiddenhauser (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:乐凯小学英语教师刘园园上课不文明行为实录.ogg

[edit]

Appears to be out of COM:SCOPE, random background noises. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Yann (talk) 13:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Luis Alexandre Franco Gonçales - pesquisador e escritor.jpg

[edit]

And also:

Portraits of non non notorious person, self promotion, no educational value. --Stego (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bhargav Suhagiya . jpg.jpg

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BHARGAV SUHAGIYA.jpg

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bharatprinters sanjeev kumar.jpg

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanjeev Kumar.jpg

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Shamli.jpg

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Shamli.JPG

[edit]

Unused unencyclopedic personal image outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20170521 Blijdesteinl 51b.jpg

[edit]

Wrong filename WeeJeeVee (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20170521 Blijdesteinl 52b.jpg

[edit]

wrong filename WeeJeeVee (talk) 10:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20170521 Blijdesteinl 56b.jpg

[edit]

wrong filename WeeJeeVee (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Khristine yoon.jpg

[edit]

Unused private family photo. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Dolores and other editors MET 2017-05 jeh.jpg

[edit]

One of the subjects had specifically requested "no photos". I failed to notice. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of warning road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These signs are Crown Copyright and covered by the Open Government Licence. They might need a {{OGL}} template, but they're OK to be here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 18:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. it's your nomination, so you don't have to  Delete; that's taken as read. 2. You've already been given links directly from the source of these images to the {{OGL}}, so it is up to you to show that the apparent licence does not apply. 3. You can't refer to OTRS tickets that nobody else can see, unless you are some sort of miracle seer. 4. You recently indicated an intention to be blocked from contributing here because you no longer felt competent to do so, and then you changed your mind. Without being a personal attack, and assuming good faith, I wonder why you don't step away from the dead horse, and take a break, because it seems that nobody is even close to sharing your view on these images. There is a time to shout, and a time to listen. Furthermore, why should the Government, for that is what we are talking about, send explicit permission via OTRS when they have already released these images via OGL? They would see it as a waste of time, and so do I. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for wanting an explicit OTRS, is that in e-mails between myself and the two contacts listed, I got a confusing picture, with one contact saying (or at least appearing to say) something different from the other one.

The Traffic Signs contact, previously indicated that Traffic Signs were indeed under OGL in respect of the Working Drawings and the Traffic Signs Manual (and I'd asked outright if this covered the outline font in the Working Drawings), Thusly in good faith it would be reasonable to argue that they wouldn't have said this unless they were also (implied) saying that Traffic Sign Designs (the Transport Typeface, and the pictograms included) were covered also.

However, later correspondence with the PSI contact at National Archives on a different issue, (I had in fact asked about "Rail Alphabet" the font used on ex British Rail signs, about which there was genuine doubt as to it's status, which I was trying to resolve in relation to an off-wiki matter.) the PSI contact said they:

... "need to check that the "Alphabet Tiles" relating to the design of the type face of UK road signs etc, has been confirmed as being Crown copyright, and whether or not the typeface has been trademarked by the Department for Transport."

they further said:

... "until such time as we can verify this, I am not able to grant permission for re-use."

This is how the ambiguity arose, and how the concerns leading to the DR arose.

Your suggestion to "drop the stick", is on the face of it a reasonable one, as I am afraid as I feel I no longer have a clear picture of what the status of the relevant items in the various DR's is. I'm not prepared to actively withdraw the DR's, based on the lack of response, and the apparent non-permission noted.

It was noted elsewhere that the text of the relevant e-mails would help, which was why they were in good faith put in the OTRS queue. For various reasons I didn't feel happy quoting them in full on a talk page, if this was an incorrect approach, I apologise for that.

So, tl;Dr - Where do we go from here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain.

I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. --Nick (talk) 09:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of regulatory road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Speedy keep The final line of this document states "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated" followed by "© Crown copyright". I could not find any statement in the document placing any restriction on any part of the document. The document covered all aspects of road signs including the use of the British Rail "double arrow" logo in Schedule 12, Part 11 and the Transport typeface in Schedule 17. In my view, this superceeds the need to go the Department of Transport or the National Archives for further advice. Martinvl (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: We need to see the text of the the e-mails in question. At the moment I cannot rule out the possibility that you are over-reacting to a non-committal reply from a British Government minion who was more concerned about ticking the "Reply sent" box on his schedule that he was about actually researching the request. Then and only then can the evidence on both sides be weighed up. Martinvl (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was the best case scenario I had in mind as well, in addition to the possibility that one of the contacts got confused between "Transport" (i.e the Traffic Sign font) which in the lack of any other indication would be in good faith assumed to be OGL/Crown copyright, and "Rail Alphabet" (the ex British Rail font) whose status was unknown, and what I'd actually asked about in the relevant query, having been in a discussion about it with yet another contact( at the DfT's Rail Executive), concerning it's status

The relevant correspondence should be in the OTRS tickets. I'm NOT prepared to quote them openly on a talk page, for various reasons.

It's been suggested elsewhere, that I drop the stick on this, I am very inclined to do this, as I'm now exceptionally confused and frustrated, despite having acted in what I thought was good faith. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Based on some suggestions elsewhere @Stefan4: , @Jdforrester: , @Jastrow: ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. --Nick (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of miscellaneous informatory road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. --Nick (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of lane control road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of temporary and emergency directional road signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of other non-motorway directional road signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of motorway signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of directional road signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of directional road signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Nominated for deletion per the outcome of an earlier DR, which determined that the British Rail/National Rail symbol or logo was above UK TOO, and not necessarily covered by OGL terms.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant earlier DR being - Commons:Deletion requests/File:BR arrows.png & Commons:Deletion requests/File:National Rail logo white.svg amongst others ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn, I will assume good faith on these images specfically as they seem to be from an official source. Following a lengthy disscussion on IRC there will be further enquired made by other contributors with a view to getting a formal view on the status of the double arrow logo.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per the comments made by the nominator when withdrawing the nomination. --Nick (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of National Cycle Network route signs

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This symbol is permitted under Commons policy Commons:Threshold of originality and as such there is no requirement to delete it.Cnbrb (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:UK Motorway template

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatability between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:UK motorway junction numbers

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC) :: On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:B-road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These signs are Crown Copyright and covered by the Open Government Licence. They might need a {{OGL}} template, but they're OK to be here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of route signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep all - Even if these files are copyrightable (which I doubt), Crown Copyright expires after 50 years. The Transport font was created in late 50s/early 60s so its copyright has expired. ShakespeareFan00, there isn't a hierarchy and there is no one "higher up than you". You are perfectly capable of initiating an OTRS conversation yourself.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep Even if they are new they are not copyrightable as it's just a typeface, thus {{PD-Text}}. // Liftarn (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright etc., Furthermore a response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatability between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the directions of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 17:57, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sidi berthe.jpg

[edit]

Private / self-promoting image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose, out of project scope Habertix (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:SVG road signs in the UK

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strongly Oppose: Firstly, the majority of these items contain no elements from any of the Transport typeface families. Secondly, these are all reproductions of signs as depicted in UK statutory instruments, which are explicitly Crown Copyright. Therefore this suggestion seems entirely unfounded. "Additional design rights" doesn't come into it, as these are reproduced from the existing designs - this is not novel design use of the font outside the remit of the Crown Copyright on the legislation. If Wikipedia were to render the webpages in Transport, that might be a different matter requiring permission. In any event, National Archives are neither the copyright holder nor the experts (are nor are Department of Transport) - that would by the Queens Printer in the guise of HMSO. Mauls (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Delete superseded PNG files.  Keep SVGs as too simple to be copyrighted, or {{OGL}}. --Rschen7754 18:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Keep the SVG files. As far as I understand, using a typeface is generally not a violation of that typeface's copyright, only distributing the typeface itself. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:33, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom

[edit]

Per Fae's concerns expressed elsewhere concerning applicability of OGL documents already marked Crown copyright (and nominally published initially prior to OGL). These were uploaded in good faith, but per Fae , applying precautionary principle.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the previous DR, which could be taken into consideration in any new review. Fae had expressed the concern about applicability on their talk page here User talk:Fæ#Traffic_Signs. @Fæ: as courtesy. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pursuant to an e-mail asking for OTRS confirmation, the nominal source of these said there were not able to complete the relevant request, thus, As there is NO clarity about the status of these, they should be deleted, as should ALL UK traffic signs related content on Commons, derived from the relevant drawings by contributors here ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
However, I am willing to be convinced otherwise. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep All of the files here are in a Zip file linked from https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-working-drawings-tsrgd-2002. That page says in part "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". I can't find any contrary statement about these working drawings, so as far as I can tell they're covered by OGLv3. OGLv3 doesn't cover "departmental ... logos", but the Department for Transport logo on the drawings is below even the UK TOO, being the words "Department for Transport" in a commonplace typeface. I think the permission statement attached to the file is incorrect, since it's associated with an entirely different set of files (the traffic sign images for reproduction). --bjh21 (talk) 12:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with User:Bjh21 and to keep the images. However, I cannot find the discussion in User:Fae's talk page or archives. So I do not know the additional arguments. Elly (talk) 19:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: The previous discussion seems to have been archived at User talk:Fæ/2021#Traffic Signs..... --bjh21 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Bjh21, Elly (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The source website indicates files are OGL3 except where otherwise stated. On the right hand top corner of the files is stated Crown copyright. According this website The default licence for most Crown copyright and Crown database right information is the Open Government Licence, which confirms the OGL license is valid. In addition, in the discussion here, on User talk:Fæ/2021#Traffic Signs.... and in Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/11#UK_Traffic_Sign_Working_drawings_-_OGL_or_not?, no exceptions have been listed. Therefore the risk of copyright violation is imho extremely small or even absent and the images can be kept. No copyrighted logo's found on the files either. Elly (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Symbols of road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep This symbol is permitted under Commons policy Commons:Threshold of originality and as such there is no requirement to delete it.Cnbrb (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Symbols of road signs (Series S) of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Symbols of road signs (Series S) of the United Kingdom

[edit]

Derived from Working Drawings, which are marked Crown Copyright, but are NOT outright marked as OGL. 2 files appear to be marked as self in error... In a comment about a mass upload of the S series working drawings, User:Fæ expressed concern that the Crown Copyright notice in the working drawings from which these files derived means that the OGL status is not explicitly indicated or clear, and thus it is my view that it's time to start a DR to finally resolve this ambiguity, ideally with an explicit OTRS from the relevant agency responsible for them.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I got as far as considering a copyrighted cow and a copyrighted sheep, and lost the will to live.
"You must do what you think is right." - Obi-Wan Kenobi.
Cnbrb (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kept, same motivation as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom, although these files are derivative works, which is permitted on the OGL licence. Elly (talk) 13:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Symbols of road signs (Series T) of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Symbols of road signs (Series T) of the United Kingdom

[edit]

In a comment about a mass upload of the S series working drawings, User:Fæ's expressed concern that the Crown Copyright notice in the working drawings from which certain Traffic Signs related images on Commons derive means that the OGL status is not explicitly indicated or clear, and thus it is my view that it's time to start a DR to finally resolve this ambiguity, ideally with someone senior from within Commons getting an explicit OTRS confirmation from the relevant agency responsible for them.

2 of the files here are dervied from working drawings:

2 of the file seem to be organizational Logo's which would not necessarily be covered by OGL anyway.

The rest seem to be sourced from the traffic-signs image databse. Does Commons have an explicit OTRS for these?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: If I looked correctly, File:UK Tourist Sign T1 - Information.svg does only have a lowercase letter "i"? Even though the British TOO is fairly very low, this may even be {{PD-ineligible}} possible? Sorry If I incorrectly read that TOO section. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:UK Tourist Sign T134 - English or Welsh golf course.svg may be ditto. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

kept, per discussion and same arguments as in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Working Drawings for Traffic Signs in the United Kingdom. Elly (talk) 13:32, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of road works signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of railway and tram crossing signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • TRSGRD 774.svg
    TRSGRD 774.svg
  • TSRGD 3014.svg
    TSRGD 3014.svg
  • UK traffic sign 770.svg
    UK traffic sign 770.svg
  • UK traffic sign 771.svg
    UK traffic sign 771.svg
  • UK traffic sign 772.svg
    UK traffic sign 772.svg
  • UK traffic sign 773.svg
    UK traffic sign 773.svg
  • UK traffic sign 774.svg
    UK traffic sign 774.svg
  • UK traffic sign 775.svg
    UK traffic sign 775.svg
  • UK traffic sign 776.svg
    UK traffic sign 776.svg
  • UK traffic sign 777.svg
    UK traffic sign 777.svg
  • UK traffic sign 778.svg
    UK traffic sign 778.svg
  • UK traffic sign 779.svg
    UK traffic sign 779.svg
  • UK traffic sign 780A.svg
    UK traffic sign 780A.svg
  • UK traffic sign 781.svg
    UK traffic sign 781.svg
  • UK traffic sign 782.svg
    UK traffic sign 782.svg
  • UK traffic sign 784.1.svg
    UK traffic sign 784.1.svg
  • UK traffic sign 787.svg
    UK traffic sign 787.svg
  • UK traffic sign 789.1.svg
    UK traffic sign 789.1.svg
  • UK traffic sign 789.2.svg
    UK traffic sign 789.2.svg
  • UK traffic sign 789.svg
    UK traffic sign 789.svg

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ciclista amb paraigües per la Via Xurra 02.jpg

[edit]

In my opinion the photo is out of project scope due to bad quality. Taivo (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. It hasn't enough quality, it was better deleting it. --Pacopac (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Zeke ravi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Scope, unused personal images.

— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:46, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Zeke ravi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of the project scope, unused personal images, re-upload of deleted images.

— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:04, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Zeke ravi (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Re-upload of deleted files. Out of project scope.

— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 14:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Daniel Enrique Vegas Velasquez.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal photo without metadata, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Agrifriend (talk · contribs)

[edit]

All uploads are out of COM:SCOPE. The files are advertising the products of Agrifriend with contact information etc.

AFBorchert (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Agrifriend (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused advertisement of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 02:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Saajolilly (talk · contribs)

[edit]

unused personal files

2003:45:5C16:F601:1DE3:D973:C9E7:65A3 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Saajolilly (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Several issues. A lot of the images are derivatives from texts or paintings and as such need permission from the original author. Others are out of scope personal images. File:Niyamajalakam pooja.jpg is a tv still.

Basvb (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Saajolilly (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused personal photos - out of project scope.

XXN, 17:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UKSI19810859.pdf

[edit]

Persuant to a lack of clarity regarding certain design elelments with respect to the road signs shown in diagram form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Traffic Signs (Speed Limits) Regulations and General Directions 1969.pdf

[edit]

Persuant to the lack of clartiy concerning certain design element present in the signs shown in diagramtic form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:UKSI 1985-0173.pdf

[edit]

Persuant to the lack of clarity with respect to certain design elements shown in diagramatic form. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 1)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet, an e-mail back from the National Archives, concerns arose that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 1)

[edit]

Traffic signs are Crown copyright. You may reproduce traffic signs free of charge and without having to seek permission, but you must reproduce them accurately and not in a misleading context (e.g. not on roadside billboards where they could mislead drivers). (ref [1])

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the above is applicable to Uk Traffic Signs content on Wikimedia Commons, this DR has been opened due to concerns over the continued presence of this and similar material on Commons, given a recent news item (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-43470241), Whilst there is no evidence indicating that the suspect mentioned obtained any material from Wikimedia Commons, the news item raised a 'safety concern' about the potential use of traffic signs material, and hence this DR has been filed per the precautionary principle..
Also affected (with far too many images to list indvidualy would be) Category:Diagrams_of_road_signs_of_the_United_Kingdom and it's sub-categories. Especially the files in Category:Transport_Alphabets_of_the_United_Kingdom and Category:Old Transport Alphabets of the United Kingdom, for which I may file an additional DR in the next few days. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - Issued was raised at COM:VP and there was no substantial objection to these being retained. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 3)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.


ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 4)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 5)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 7)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Chapter 7)

[edit]

Traffic signs are Crown copyright. You may reproduce traffic signs free of charge and without having to seek permission, but you must reproduce them accurately and not in a misleading context (e.g. not on roadside billboards where they could mislead drivers). (ref [2])

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and withdraw. - Wrong button pushed in VFC. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Volumes)

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements (i.e the diagrams in the Schedule) explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Traffic Signs Manual (UK) (Volumes)

[edit]

DR requested as these originated with Highways England and not DfT directly.. Even though that Agency was mailed around the time of upload there's still been no confirmation that these are in fact as OGL, as good faith would sugggest. Per Fae's comments about OGL applicability to documents otherwise marked Crown Copyright, these will have to be removed without a further clarification or direct confirmation of OGL status.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: I don't understand the reference to Highways England. The title page of each volume lists "Department for Transport/Highways Agency", but while Highways England is the successor to the Highways Agency, there's an important difference between them: the Highways Agency was part of the Department for Transport (and hence a government department), while Highways England is a separate company. In any case, the files appear on https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/traffic-signs-manual, which says at the bottom "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0, except where otherwise stated". In the absence of some other statement, the manuals are under OGLv3. The only possible problem is that Part 2 include the TSO logo, which is probably not covered by OGLv3. I think it's below the threshold of originality, but if it isn't then maybe it should be removed from the file. --bjh21 (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Page 3 of the document ( which is the pre OGL crown waiver) That's the issue related to what Fae raised on something else. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: You're quite right; I hadn't spotted that. The copyright page of each volume says "For any other use of this material, apply for a Value Added Click-Use Licence" and that obviously means we can't rely on the blanket OGL statement for gov.uk and we need to look deeper. The Value Added Click-Use Licence stopped being issued on 2009-12-01 and "Most information that was previously regarded as value added [could then] be re-used under the PSI Click-Use Licence."[3] The exceptions were the members of the Information Fair Traders Scheme[4], which didn't include any of the organisations mentioned on the title page. So from 2009-12-01, these volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual could be licensed under the PSI Click-Use Licence. The PSI Click-Use Licence was then superseded by the OGL, and "Any information subject to Crown copyright that was available for re-use under the PSI Click-Use Licence may now be re-used under the OGL."[5] That seems to me to add up to a definitive statement that these volumes of the Traffic Signs Manual are now licensed under OGL. --bjh21 (talk) 12:25, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bjh21: Thanks. If you could also review the current 2018 set on.gov.uk as well, much appreciated, because they would be something nice to have on Commons/Wikisource if possible. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the "Permission" section on each file to summarise my reasoning above. --bjh21 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn but without objection if it gets re-nominated at a later date.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn by nominator. --Missvain (talk) 22:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Portal Lubazmusic (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Out of project scope.

— D Y O L F 77[Talk] 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:TSRGD1981-p2647.svg

[edit]

Persuant to the lack of clartiy regarding the status of the "Transport" and "Motorway" typefaces. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:TSRGD1981-p2647.svg

[edit]

Persuant to Commons:Village_pump#A_concern_about_UK_Traffic_Signs_Content,_pursuant_to_a_recent_news_item_on_the_BBC_website and that this is derived from material with an unclear status with respect to the claimed OGL status. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - 5 days at COM:VP and no substantial objections. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Antonio Linares.jpg

[edit]

Linares44 (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage in es.wiki and uploading a photo about himself, which is used only on the userpage. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Antti Yrjönen.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal photo, the uploader's only contribution. Out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:28, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sendero geologico.jpg

[edit]

Out of project scope due to missing educational value. Small photo without metadata, country is unidentified. Taivo (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:37, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Teziutlán .jpg

[edit]

Image has a watermark. Possibility of copyvios. ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 03:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ASALAKUM.jpg

[edit]

Shujaat1234 (talk · contribs) has done nothing in Wikipedia, except userpage and sandbox in en.wiki and uploading 2 textfiles (one now deleted), which are used only in his userspace. All his activity in Wikipedia is out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Masum-al-hasan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nom Jianhui67 talk★contribs 15:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not PD, and have no legal permission or license. Even uploaded in not the original photographer. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted - Jcb (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Masum-al-hasan (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own work. Seems copyvio. No permission.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 04:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Disagree Content on the site is licensed under Creative Commons Licence.--Masum-al-Hasan (talk) 04:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NonCommercial and NoDerivatives are not allowed licenses on commons --Hystrix (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bad Luck (2015).jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by MarcoAurelio as Fair use (fair use). Converting to DR as I have doubts, although the poster seems copyrighted to me and not own work as asserted on the licensing field. —MarcoAurelio 14:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - non free image from en-wiki en:File:Bad Luck Official Poster.jpg. --Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of old road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [reply]

On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also strike-thus duplicate entries previously filed in an earlier DR
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatibility between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An additional point arises in that some of these were "constructed" with reference to the 1981 regulations, and the 2002 working drawings. Therefore whilst an effort has been made to accurately represent them, they aren't necessarily exact replicas. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. --Natuur12 (talk) 22:45, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:Diagrams of road signs of the United Kingdom

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments A couple of complexities, which need input from an expert: 1) The ones I created (British Direction Sign 1.svg and HeadrowSpeedLimit.svg) at least don't use the Transport TTF files produced by the government, but rather a public-domain recreation. I'm not sure whether claims on the original font cascade to these. 2) Wikipedia differentiates between raster images using copyrighted fonts (which are allowed) and vector images using them (which pose some complexities, and are not allowed for providing typeface examples). This nomination includes a mixture of PNG, JPG, GIF and SVG files. 3) Under UK law, the usage of typefaces can't be copyrighted, only the patterns/files used to create them. Would these all fall under Template:PD-textlogo - as, for instance, File:Facebook.svg does? 4) Typefaces are copyrightable (well, design patent-able) for a maximum of 25 years in the EU, according to w:Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts. This typeface was created in 1963, and the latest date the design patent could expire on it would therefore be 1988. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Transport as whole was created in 1963, but has I think been revised when each specific version of the TSGRD has been issued. The last version of Transport would thus be from 2016 when additional Galiec letter forms were added. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep I can not oppose this enough. The OGL license appears clear to me, and furthermore I believe this would be a loss of an invaluable contribution considering this effects not only the United Kingdom but several former British colonies (probably a dozen) whose traffic signs are heavily derived from those of the United Kingdom. Fry1989 eh? 19:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this is on basis of a typeface copyright, these would not be derivative works of that typeface, per UK copyright law (sections 54 and 55). I think the protection is more for copying entire font files unlicensed -- I don't think there is any claim over documents etc. produced with a licensed typeface. Otherwise, you are claiming that books are derivative works of the typeface used and the typeface designer gets to control distribution. Copying vectors exactly may be a bit fuzzier, but this seems like a pretty extreme interpretation to nominate these for a DR, and it doesn't seem like these were made from the official font anyways. Not remotely close to COM:PRP for me.  Keep if this is primarily about a typeface claim. Carl Lindberg (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Withdrawn. --Natuur12 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sundariiiii poster.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted movie poster. XXN, 17:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Hystrix: Out of project scope

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

Category:Brug 043

[edit]

Category:Brug 043 is replaced by Category:Brug 43. --Io Herodotus (talk) 05:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brug 068

[edit]

Category:Brug 068 is replaced by Category:Brug 68, Aalmoezeniersbrug. --Io Herodotus (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 11:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Keizersgracht

[edit]

Category:Keizersgracht replaced by Category:Keizersgracht, Amsterdam. --Io Herodotus (talk) 05:13, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: and disambiguated. --Achim (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Manuel M (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Small images without EXIF data, please upload the original files, or send a permission via COM:OTRS.

Yann (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by Manuel M (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No evidence of valid license in the Italian House of Deputies

Discasto talk 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 21:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 21:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Riccardo Pennacchio.jpg

[edit]

unused personal image, not within project scope. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Addicts map.jpg

[edit]

Out dated - I published an updated map Amoc43 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 02:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Funakoshi Eiji and Hasegawa Yumiko.jpg

[edit]

撮影者が判別し、著作権が法人ではなかったためパブリックドメインの要件を満たさなくなった。 李桃桃内 (talk) 07:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Uploader requested and unused.--Fanghong (talk) 02:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Trivendra yadav shekhpur ahir.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal vanity photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 10:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anuj yadav bhai shekhpur ahir.jpg

[edit]

Unused personal vanity photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 10:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:منير محمد كمال الدالاتي .jpg

[edit]

Out of COM:SCOPE. jdx Re: 15:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Bigpamtl (talk · contribs)

[edit]

We have enough photo of penis with a Prince Albert.

Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Omer Akgus.png

[edit]

Unused low-quality personal photo of subject with no apparent notability. Apparently uploaded for use in tr:Ömer akguş, which was deleted for lack of notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mr. Masood Naqi Profile.jpg

[edit]

Promotional content, out of scope. Achim (talk) 19:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Masood Naqi.jpg

[edit]

Promotional content, out of scope. Achim (talk) 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Incredible kashmir.jpg

[edit]

uncategorized and unused personal image (selfie +second person), out of COM:SCOPE. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pleasant weather.jpg

[edit]

uncategorized and unused personal image (selfie +second person), out of COM:SCOPE. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Selfie in kashmir.jpg

[edit]

uncategorized and unused personal image (selfie), out of COM:SCOPE. Rupert Pupkin (talk) 21:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted / Out of scope.--Fanghong (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by T. B. Remencova (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Rephotographs of figurative material, without permission from original creators, and/or dates and creators names (all claimed as Own Work).

Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Harshsurenrpng.png

[edit]

Logo of a non-notable website/business. Unused on any wikis. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zusatzschild 724 e - nur Kraftomnibus (Sinnbild).svg

[edit]

Please kill this side. Wrong name! Mediatus (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by Sealle. Daphne Lantier 03:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by MontaroGrimm (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Own work is unlikely. Possible copyright infringement.

—MarcoAurelio 14:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indian Coins.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PosterFilme.jpg

[edit]

Poster of a film. Not own work and possible copyright infringement. —MarcoAurelio 14:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:347188.jpg-c 520 690 x-f jpg-q x-xxyxx.jpg

[edit]

Poster of a film. Not own work as asserted and possible copyright infringement. —MarcoAurelio 14:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Filmography2 may 17.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope. Licensing concerns. —MarcoAurelio 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Filmographymumbai

[edit]

COM:ADVERT concerns. —MarcoAurelio 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tcm4.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RACISM.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Afiche oficial de la película.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted movie poster. XXN, 16:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La espera Netflix.jpg

[edit]

Copyrighted movie poster. XXN, 16:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Astra-hc.png

[edit]

Unused logo of organization without apparent notability. Apparently uploaded for use in en:Astra Health Center, which was deleted for lack of notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by PsychopathicAssassin (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyrighted movie poster & album cover.

XXN, 16:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Hospitilio (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unused promotional content for company with no apparent notability. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope.

—LX (talk, contribs) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ptottenqub (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not own work, in exif data they are attributed to different authors and copyright "Queens University Belfast"

Aloneinthewild (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 13:44, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Привокзальная площадь.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Ukraine Dogad75 (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Надикто.jpg

[edit]

Some doubt about ownership by uploader, as this image was published already in 2010[6]. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Katy-Perry-2017-iHeartRadio-Music-Awards.jpg

[edit]

Non free image with no indication in source of it being freely licensed IndianBio (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete improperly licensed, likely copyrighted. SNUGGUMS (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Вид на Эльбрус с плато Бермамыт (Бурмабут).jpg

[edit]

Нарушение авторских прав (http://pavelbogdanov.ru/photo-gallery/fotografii-elbrusa) Barbarian (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Paladinum2 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Published under Public Domain as "It is a work published or commissioned by a Brazilian government (federal, state, or municipal) prior to 1983" - however, these images are screenshots from a cited website which was makes all of these images derivative works - not eligible for the license chosen.

Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Paladinum2 has re-uploaded a file with the person cropped out, however there is still no proof that the art was commissioned prior to 1983. For example, if I were to draw one of those politicians today, yes they were deceased before 1983 but my art would be created in 2017, and would still be subject to copyright. In order to have proof of permission, it is necessary to prove that a) it was created before 1983, and b) that the creation was a result of work published/commissioned by the Brazilian government prior to 1983. Jon Kolbert (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, so, I think I cannot prove the age of the images. So I think their destination is to be deleted. Paladinum2 (talk) 02:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ziya keskiner.jpg

[edit]

claimed to be own work which is most likely not true; seems to be not free (tineye crawled one from 2 years ago). Adile Naşit and Ziya Keskiner (the two people in the image) both died in 1980s. Bulgu (talk) 01:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by ROBIN CUERVO (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Generally these images don't serve a purpose outside of displaying the work of a specific artist. The user appears to have contributed them for the purposes of illustrating en:Draft:Robin Cuervo (2), a designer, however, that submission was declined seemingly for notability reasons. So evaluating these images outside of the context of that person, they don't really serve any other use to the project. Many of them contain watermarks and copyright notices.

seb26 (talk) 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cricizone logo.png

[edit]

Logo of a non-notable website/portal. Unused on any wikis. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kharkiv South RWSB.jpg

[edit]

No FoP in Ukraine Dogad75 (talk) 04:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: while there is no FoP that applies to modern building whose creator is not dead 70 years, socan we determine if the building is old enough for its creator to have died more than 70 years ago, in which case it would be freely licensed. It looks like a pretty old building. Ww2censor (talk) 09:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The current station building has been opened on 2 November 1952. en:Kharkiv railway station --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Casey logo.png

[edit]

Not a free image, but rather a copyrighted logo owned by the Casey Demons. Due to the strict implementation of Threshold of Originality in Australia, the logo is not simple enough to be in the public domain Flickerd (talk) 05:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Delete Non free image from en-wiki en:File:Casey Demons logo.png Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sunny Mabrey1.jpg

[edit]

No evidence of permission, not plausibly own work. (BLP images couldn't even be used as fair use on enwiki.) nyuszika7h (talk) 05:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Damien In School.jpg

[edit]

Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolution, missing metadata, and the uploader's history. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Shriguru ji raised voice against pakistan.jpg

[edit]

Collage of unattributed images. Political campaigning outside our scope. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:USl logotipo.png

[edit]

Needless, horrible-quality raster duplicate of File:United Soccer League 2015 logo.svg with bogus authorship and licensing information. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OF Plan Joest 1900.tif

[edit]

doppelt hochgeladen Johann Malchus (talk) 05:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OF Plan L Schmidt 1900.tif

[edit]

doppelt hochgeladen Johann Malchus (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Laskarina Bouboulina.jpg

[edit]

No freedom of panorama in Greece. Work by Lazaros Lameras (1913-1998), not free. —Ah3kal (Talk) 05:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:MOHA.jpg

[edit]

CR violation code FBMD01000ac0030000bf180000232d00005130000087320000f33b0000f4660000186d0000767400009c79000051db0000 (Comes from fb) BukhariSaeed (talk) 07:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ALEXANDRE BRASSEUR - COPYRIGHT FRANCOIS DARMIGNY .jpg

[edit]

ALEXANDRE BRASSEUR - COPYRIGHT FRANCOIS DARMIGNY, image sous copyright donc autorisation du photographe nécessaire, voir Commons:OTRS/fr Shev123 (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Def Leppard live in Dublin 12 June 2009.png

[edit]

Source is dead, no Author, incredible License, uploader's only other upload was deleted for unsubstantiated permission.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PMMA struttura.PNG

[edit]

Unused, small and lowres. Have a bunch of Category:Polymethylmethacrylate, including File:Polymethylmethacrylat.svg with same level of explicit detail. DMacks (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Thierry ROBERT, Député de La Réunion, Maire de Saint-Leu.png

[edit]

Travail personnel que je souhaite retirer de wikipedia. Legermi (talk) 08:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pavões no Campo de Santana.jpg

[edit]

poor quality, blurry Hiddenhauser (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:FIN 1993 MiNr1198 VFSujet B002.jpg

[edit]

 Delete: only Finnish stamps issued before 1990 are in the public domain per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Finland, also see the appropriate Finnish stamp template: {{PD-FinlandStamp}}. The license template attached to this stamp image is not applicable. Ww2censor (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gonçalo Guedes.png

[edit]

Copyright ? Data ? Supporterhéninois (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Prayash Gupta.jpg

[edit]

Unused private vanity photo of non-notable individual. Outside project scope. DAJF (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yves Saint Laurent at Proscénium Gallery.jpg

[edit]

Source image was deleted as copyright violation, so extracted image should be also. Mabalu (talk) 09:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frauenakt mit Sonnenblume - Hans Frost, 1947.png

[edit]

Künstler erst 1975 gestorben. Keine Freigabe der Nachlassverwaltung ersichtlich. Der Eigentümer hast Du nur das absolute Recht, das Bild auszustellen, zu verkaufen oder zu vernichten. Das weitergehende Verwertungsrecht (öffentliche Abbildungen!) hat nur der Rechteinhaber (Erbe). --Artmax (talk) 08:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gallery 114183 8 418907-e1422790312902.jpg

[edit]

https://www.nyatider.nu/europeer-fore-sumererna-med-skriftsprak/ Yger (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Боевой путь 34 гвардейского стрелкового полка .png

[edit]

Unlikely to own work. Modern countries and frontiers on the historical map. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Axel Melchior.jpg

[edit]

Image published on Twitter, probably not a free image Shev123 (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vishal Shekhar at the IIFA Rocks fashion show.jpg

[edit]

BH photos of non-Indian events are not free. Kailash29792 (talk) 11:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Vishal Dadlani, Shekhar Ravjiani, Javed Akhtar, Shantanu Moitra Music Workshop at IIFA 2012.jpg

[edit]

BH photos of non-Indian events are not free Kailash29792 (talk) 11:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caption4.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be an Alamy commercial stock photo with the watermarking carefully airbrushed out. See http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-diagram-of-a-human-uterus-during-the-seventh-week-of-pregnancy-24898559.html Stout256 (talk) 13:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:BD-Rougnat7.jpg

[edit]

Droits d'auteur ?? LucasD (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Moulin Neuf.jpg

[edit]

Fichiers Google, pas d'autorisation apparente. LucasD (talk) 13:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:^0CE54407357A24E93A637868AB02F3022F8CEBAFD1E977CFD1^pimgpsh fullsize distr.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a commercial image. See http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-diagram-of-a-human-uterus-during-the-fourth-month-of-pregnancy-24898558.html Stout256 (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Caption5.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be a commercial image. In any event, it is available on a commercial image web site: http://doctorstock.photoshelter.com/image/I0000y4lrtPxoQgI Stout256 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurchev.jpg

[edit]

Some doubt about ownership by uploader, as this image was published already in 2014 and 2016 [7]. -- Túrelio (talk) 13:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Boswellia carterii - Boswellia serrata.png

[edit]

Selbst erstellt. Soll später durch aktuelleres ersetzt werden. Sciencia58 (talk) 13:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RanuUniyal.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation from http://poetrywriting.org/Sketchbook6-1JanFeb2011/Sketchbook_6-1_JanFeb_2011_I_Ranu_Uniyal.htm. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:5782ranu.jpg

[edit]

Copyright violation from http://ranuuniyal.in/index.php/about-us/my-profile. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:La restitutio in integrum.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:20170518 194844 (convert-video-online.com).webm

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private video album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carolyn Parker April 2017.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: text document of questionable notability. Used only on user page EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ब्रह्मर्षि लाला बाबा धाम.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Shreelalababadham (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0p_6Q_UcAE6mJH.jpg.

EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hazrat Makhdoom Shah Sakib Kidwai (RA)2014.pdf

[edit]

Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Church Prostřední Suchá.jpg

[edit]

{{PermissionOTRS|ticket=https://secure.wikimedia.org/otrs/index.pl?Action=AgentTicketZoom&TicketID=10003449}} does not lead to the right ticket ID, so we have no proof of permission. Jarekt (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover filmoghrphy March 2017.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, own work unlikely, possible copyright infringement. —MarcoAurelio 14:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Cover filmoghrphy May 2017 - New.jpg

[edit]

Out of scope, own work unlikely, possible copyright infringement. —MarcoAurelio 14:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plan dolmen Elles2.svg

[edit]

wrong file :) Meriem Mach (talk) 15:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Zdeněk Formánek.jpg

[edit]

imagevio from http://www.hcchrudim.cz/photofolder?text=&idSeason=4&idCategory=0&idFolder=58&page=1# Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Honoris.jpg

[edit]

Permission OTRS template leads to Ticket:2017052210002317 which is unrelated to this image Jarekt (talk) 15:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mitoceutyki - WIKIPEDIA.pdf

[edit]

Copyvio as reported on OTRS: Ticket#2017052210013574 Polimerek (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Christian Ganiere.jpg

[edit]

Appears to be promotional head shot, available elsewhere online including http://cpcnewstoday.com/archives/18406 TimothyJosephWood 16:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lems artist photo.jpg

[edit]

Copy from http://z-d-w.com/_src/9856/lems.jpg 240B:253:40E0:800:DD8D:74F:51BE:1C39 16:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was provided by the official office to post to Wikipedia.--Keizaburo Sakurayama (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chronojump-logo-2013 320.png

[edit]

Missing notice of license. It's a GNOME project so the logo/code could ostensibly be free, but the details aren't linked/listed on the page czar 17:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Pedro Sánchez logo 2017.png

[edit]

The claim of lack of originality is hard to understand Discasto talk 17:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:SR Leader 05.jpg

[edit]

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that this would be 'crown copyright'. Author of this 1949 picture has definitely not died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 17:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Legranadite.png

[edit]

If i read right the caption, the photo is from Wendell Wilson from 1972, COM:PCP. Ras67 (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Framk Walter Cover Pic.jpg

[edit]

Seems to be a copyright violation - see https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-unknown-antiguan-visionary-knew-the-living-artist. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armenian Bible.JPG

[edit]

No authorship information on the photographer of this 3D object. Definitely not PD-old. Jcb (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Packaged Steamed Buckwheat.jpg

[edit]

COM:PACKAGING. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kashiwa Junior high school.jpg

[edit]

No permission. See external source in file description. Jcb (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:张春贤.jpg

[edit]

http://news.eastday.com/c/20100425/u1a5168735.html 2010-4-25 AddisWang (talk) 00:42, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: copyvio shizhao (talk) 03:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:张春贤.jpg

[edit]

This is not the same image as was deleted before with this file name, but its just as much a copyright violation, as it claims it was published prior to January 1, 1923 which is highly unlikely. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:保定市乐凯小学.png

[edit]

There is no information to support the copyright claim at https://baike.baidu.com/pic/%E4%B9%90%E5%87%AF%E5%B0%8F%E5%AD%A6/10267864/0/500fd9f9d72a6059d5b18e8a2e34349b023bbaf9?fr=lemma&ct=single#aid=0&pic=500fd9f9d72a6059d5b18e8a2e34349b023bbaf9, but notice that the Baidu logo has been blacked out of this copy prior to upload. The building dates to 1960. I do not think uploader has the right to upload this image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Stavitski timo 77 1.jpg

[edit]

Looks like same photo shoot as http://www.veikkausliiga.com/pelaajat/78249/luiro-jarkko, which would make this a team photograph, not a 2017 "own work" of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chicago Motor Speedway,Hawthorne Race Course.jpg

[edit]

Dubious claim of own work on this 2007 aerial photo. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep: Now passed FlickreviewR. --Achim (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: as per Achim. Daphne Lantier 23:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Plants at Company Bagh Okara - panoramio.jpg

[edit]

poor quality, blurry, datestamp Hiddenhauser (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Byali.jpg

[edit]

Probably copyright infrigiment. DzajKej86 don't get a permission to upload this photo to Wikimedia Commons. Pachidensha (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Max Slevogt - von Hans Frost, 1930.jpg

[edit]

artist died 1975, no permission added Alinea (talk) 19:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

advertisments thinkbluemouse.co.uk

[edit]

The first two files are pure advertisment with no educational value (out of scope). The third file would be in scope but with missing ORTS (validation of licensing via company email-adress) it can't be kept. --Zaccarias (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Casa Abandonada.jpg

[edit]

Porque a imagem não aparecer Sérgio Augusto Pereira 19:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parc Marcelle-Barthe cartopartie organisée par Open Street Map Montréal 0001.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Paul Shoiry (2).jpg

[edit]

Published on the city's website, which is marked all rights reserved by the city [8]. On the city's website, there is no mention that V.S.Brochu created this official photo. Needs confirmation of the uploader's claim of authorship and of copyright ownership. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:09, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

The uploader is the subject of these photos, those were not taken by himself or not self-portrait. Not uploaded by the original author. Permission needed. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:24, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Moheen . Those pictures were taken by my camera, but I didn't click those pictures.As those pictures were taken with my camera and I have those original picture, that's why I gave my name in author and permission options.--IqbalHossain (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - can be undeleted if a valid permission from the photographers arrives. --Jcb (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass upload of an event promotion; Commons is not a social media site nor a photo album. There is no rational use. Out of project scope‎.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 21:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass upload of local event promotion; Commons is not a social media site nor a photo album. There is no rational use and educational value. Clearly out of project scope‎.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass upload of local event promotion; Commons is not a social media site nor a photo album. There is no rational use and educational value. Clearly out of project scope‎.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 22:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass upload of local event promotion; Commons is not a social media site nor a photo album. There is no rational use and educational value. Clearly out of project scope‎.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Mass upload from several local event promotions; Commons is not a social media repository nor a personal photo album. Lack of common sense. For the other files, there is no rational use and educational value. Lots of them are in bad resolution, mostly blurred. Clearly out of project scope‎. In previous, already a hundred files were deleted for the same propose. There needs to give a warning to this user, hope it can save more time in future.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 17:50, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 08:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Same as above.

~ Moheen (keep talking) 20:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Per COM:DW

~Moheen (keep talking) 17:23, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of delectation notification is not cleared. please clear the reason and exact point. thanks. --IqbalHossain (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Commons:Derivative works guideline carefully. ~Moheen (keep talking) 17:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - except 4 kept where the artworks are DM and blurred. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Images are too blurry, some too dark, some too bright, and out of focus. Though most of them have other quality versions.

~Moheen (keep talking) 04:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by IqbalHossain (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Insufficient quality, near damaged file. For that no educational value to express.

~Moheen (keep talking) 11:16, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sradacosta.jpg

[edit]

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Taeniases.jpg

[edit]

Same user uploaded copyvios. This one may not be his own work. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kanhayalal nandan.jpg

[edit]

Same user uploaded copyvios. This one with low resolution may not be his own work. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gach.png

[edit]

Same user uploaded copyvios. This one with low resolution may not be his own work. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Abu Sayeed.jpg

[edit]

Same user uploaded copyvios. This one may not be his own work. Also File:A Sayeed.JPG TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 20:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Armando1966 (talk · contribs)

[edit]

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Probably not own work. Small resolution and most have no EXIF. Only 3 files have EXIF, from 3 different camera's.

Jcb (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Ahmet Hakan Coşkun.jpg

[edit]

License information is not clear, not provided in the source link. ❣Paseyn msg 21:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Full Moon (video game).png

[edit]

Source does not state that the game is under GPL. (Article on en.wp has been deleted) Luk (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ksarasola (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This series of images of journals, books and posters was all copied from flickr and passed flickr review, but I am unsure that the flickr photographer has the rights to these items to release them via flickr. Nominating for clarity and consensus.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is my answer about the rights of those pictures that have been in Commons for several years with no problems, of course :-)

  1. All those images correspond to meetings organized by Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea (UEU), and Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea is the owner of the rights to publish these pictures.
  2. The fickr account "ueu365" is the Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea's account in Flickr (ueu stands for Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea; 365 stands for "every day news"). You can consult also the blog ueu365 (http://www.unibertsitatea.net/blogak/ueu365/) with the slogan "UEUren jarduera akademikoaren bloga" that means "blog on academic activities of the Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea", with direct kink to ueu.eus ("Kontaktua: ikastaroak@ueu.eus"). Here again "ueu365" means Udako euskal Unbertsitatea.

Then, it is clear that the flickr account has the rights to release these items via flickr.-Ksarasola (talk) 17:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarity. It doesn't hurt to take a second look especially as the flickr page appears to be a pool site, not the work of an individual. The images are illustrations, some have other logos and images embedded. The blog you referred to also seems to have photographs created by more than one person and may include web-found images. The article where these are in use https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informatikari_euskaldunen_bilkurak is a page that shows all these posters/covers as a table. Its nearly an orphan and has one citation; so it appears (although it may not be) some form of promotionalism. I found the linked sites to which it is linked light on references (e.g. https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elena_Lazkano & https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Udako_Euskal_Unibertsitatea), or in the case of https://eu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_Androids_Dream_of_Electric_Sheep%3F, the link only appears in the references. I found many social media links to ueu365, but nothing showing obvious notability other than the page of posters as mentioned above. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. You don't have to copy all correspondence to my talk page, nothing discussed over there will be taken into account by the closing admin here.[reply]
Thank you for your explanations.
(1) Sorry for copying all correspondence to your talk page too, I deleted it later. I did it because I do not know very well how this kind of requests work and because when some of my pictures were deleted some months before I answered (one week ago when I had time to do it in a clear way. Having requests is always a difficult task, and it has to be done in English) but I did not get any answer for my answer. It was a first step for a further discussion but with no answer I gave up, and some files were deleted. Today I had some time and I tried to be effective withmy answer, sorry for copying my answer to your talk page too.-Ksarasola (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I think the main problem today is that yesterday I uploaded some images (ten?) from one journal (argia.eus, that publishes with license CC-BY-SA), and then now you and others editors you think I am massively "delinking". Please, one question first, can you confirm me that when I upload images with license CC-BY-SA I am not delinking)? Sorry if it is not true, I thought so when I did it yesterday.-Ksarasola (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Coming again to the list of images involved in this request, you say "it appears (although it may not be) some form of promotionalism". First of all I would like to remark that Udako Euskal Unibertsitatea (Basque Summer University) is a non-profit cultural association (declared of public utility) working with the aim of "building bridges between the Basque language and the university, and producing university texts in Basque". Then, of course there is no commercial interest on publishing those images of leaflets and schedules for old workshops from the past. I included them as a way to historically document that non-profit activity, that, by the way, for more than 8 years it has been a suitable forum to motivate contributions to Basque Wikipedia in the area of Computer Science. Yes, you are right, there is not a lot of links to this article,,, Basque Wikipedia is not very strong, we have a lot of weak areas. The area of Computer Science is large in English Wikipedia, but not so robust in Basque... we are working for that... and the workshops described in the article are an important agent in that way. Well, I understand your explanation, I could understand you could delete the images, then I should remove the whole table in the article... As you decide -Ksarasola (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin of the Basque Wikipedia I can confirm that all the arguments given by User:Ksarasola are valid. He is the director of the Informatic Faculty in the University of the Basque Country ref, and knows quite good all the Creative Commons involved in this university related publications. -Theklan (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination pending file and license review by closing admin. Ksarasola, Theklan. When the licenses are the same as from the flickr account, that should be ok. I am sorry, I don't know what you refer to by delinking. Again, thank you for the clarity on these images, sorry for the misunderstanding on my part. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Wdwd (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ksarasola (talk · contribs)

[edit]

There is no evidence of a Creative Commons license in this site. It seems they have the regular copyright notice

Discasto talk 21:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination I didn't notice the permission was actually another image :-O. See here. --Discasto talk 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Daphne Lantier 23:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ksarasola (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Not a .berria.eus content, https://www.berria.eus/lizentzia.

Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patrick Rogel: The first two images are not berria.eus contents (File:Aitziber Irigoras Anboto 2015.jpg and * File:Aitziber idigoras Anboto.jpg). You are right. But I wrote that their source is the following:
Anboto, CC-BY-SA. https://anboto.org/durangaldea/1434200882949-ustekabe-barik-eratu-dira-hurrengo-lau-urteotarako-udalbatzak-durangaldeann
And this website (anboto.org) also uses CC-BY-SA license. You can verify it in their "lege-oharra" page (legal comment) here: https://anboto.org/lege-oharra/ Please read the section "Jabetza intelektuala eta industriala" (Intellectual and industrial property) where cc-by-sa is mentioned.Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: The arguments for the other four images are the same I used last January with the following image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ksarasola#File:Koldo_Losada_Manolto_GafotasEgunkaria2000.jpg You can see that at the end the images were not deleted. Regards.Ksarasola (talk) 23:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ksarasola: It seems it's the only file of the same May 2019 batch which avoided deletion. I ping the deleting Administrator @P199: . Nice try but the Berria copyright notice hasn't changed since that date: "ez diete eragingo EFE eta Argazki Press agentzietatik datozen edukiei eta Euskal Editorea ez den beste enpresa batzuetatik datozenei." --Patrick Rogel (talk) 04:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: Excuse me, it is not easy for me to find that May 2019 batch. Could you send me the link, please?. Ksarasola (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Patrick Rogel: The Berria copyright notice in English means "The contents of the EFE and Argazki Press agencies will not affect, nor will those coming from companies other than Euskal Editorea." (I used https://itzultzailea.eus/fr/traducteur, that is better than Google for Basque). As none of the authors of the four images mentioned yesterday was working for agencies (EFE, Argazki Press or FOKU) the four images have CC-BY-SA licence. The authors of those images (Gari Garaialde, Xouse Simal, Anjela Mejas and Ander Gillenea) are persons that are working or collaborating with Berria or Euskaldunon Egunkaria, and they are not working with any agency like EFE, Argazki Press or FOKU. If the authors had been working with an agency it would have been described as "Gari Garaialde/EFE" or "Gari Garaialde/ARGAZKI PRESS", but that is not the case, so the four images have CC-BY-SA licence.Ksarasola (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Seems that permission is valid. Can be renominated if there is clear evidence to the contrary. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Ksarasola (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Copyrighted material as can be seen here.

—Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 17:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Teles, I am collecting information about printed encyclopedias in Basque (see Euskarazko entziklopediak in Basque Wikipedia). All of them have more than 20 years and it is almost impossible to see them in public libraries. They are too old. As I wanted to show the differences between those all encyclopedias in structure, in the use of pictures and in working teams, my plan is to show pictures of book covers, editors and just one or two pages to show the structure of the definitions in the encyclopedia (just one or two pages not a lot of pages). Besides those books are too old, and most of them have been freely distributed with CC-BY-SA licence. It is the case of "Lur" encyclopedia (see https://www.euskadi.eus/lur-hiztegi-enziklopedikoa/web01-a2lurhiz/eu/). The case of Elkar encyclopedia is not so clear (Its contents were published in if you think I should do it, I will ask the editors for an explicit permission, but take into account that 1) the book is old (2003) 2) I just use the book cover, information about the editors, statistics of the entries and just one or two pages to show the structure. So I think there is no problem to publish those pictures. Please, tell me if you think I have to ask for explicit permissions of Elkar Encyclopedia, I would need one month, more or less, for that. Thanks Ksarasola (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ksarasola, thanks for replying. I do believe it should be clarified what is the license of each file and, as there are many pictures on some of them, you will probably need to provide permission for them. That may be an exception, but those pictures are usually copyrighted. —Teles «Talk to me ˱C L @ S˲» 22:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then let start with "Lur hiztegi entziklopedikoa". This Encyclopedia is being distributed with CC-BY-SA licence (see https://www.euskadi.eus/lur-hiztegi-enziklopedikoa/web01-a2lurhiz/eu/). So there is no problem to publish File:Lur hiztegi entziklopedikoa 18 23 04 375000.jpeg with CC-BY-SA license. Do you agree? Thanks. Ksarasola (talk) 16:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep for the four Elkar Hiztegi files. Per Ticket:2022121910007626, we received a valid permission from the CEO of the editorial which maintains the copyright on the encyclopedia depicted in those files. – para los cuatro archivos Elkar Hiztegi, según Ticket:2022121910007626, recibimos un permiso válido de la directora general de la editorial que mantiene los derechos de autor de la enciclopedia representada en esos cuatro archivos. --Mussklprozz (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As above. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Armenian martyrdom portrayed-1918.png

[edit]

No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No information on the country of origin. Armenia has the PMA+70 rule. Jcb (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Carlos Fonseca.jpg

[edit]

It seems a clear derivative work with uncertain original license status Discasto talk 21:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Esta fotografía es un recorte de otra general Cartel_Carlos_Fonseca.JPG realizado en el montaje de un vídeo mediante el barrido de cámara, se puede ver aquí en el momento 3m38s. La fotografía original así como la confección íntegra del vídeo y posterior manipulación para extraer el fotograma, es obra personal mía. Tengo los negativos de las fotos, los masters del vídeo y la edición final. Es claro que la obra es propia, que soy su autor y que al subirla a commons he cedido sus derechos. Por otro lado, es una imagen, que aunque de calidad pobre, ilustra multitud de artículos en varios proyectos de wikipedia, una de las pocas imágenes de Carlos Fonseca que hay en el proyecto. Txo (discusión) Mi discusión en castellano 08:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 I withdraw my nomination --Discasto talk 20:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Daphne Lantier 23:15, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OF Mainstr Schloss 1900.tif

[edit]

doppelt hochgeladen Johann Malchus (talk) 22:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bastardo fabricado en Camocim.jpg

[edit]

No lo puse en la categoria justa Luis Francisco Taddei (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OF Mainstr Schloss O 1895.tif

[edit]

doppelt hochgeladen Johann Malchus (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Official Portrait of Justice Chuck Malone.jpg

[edit]

 Delete: there is no evidence this image was made by a US federal government employee as claimed by the license template. The source news webpage attributes the image to one of its own staff photographers thus: "staff photo / Michelle Lepianka Carter" Ww2censor (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Portrait of Justice Lyn Stuart.jpg

[edit]

 Delete Alabama state works are not US federal government works so the license is false. Copyright status is unknown, we would need an OTRS verification from the copyright holder to keep this image. Ww2censor (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Official Portait of Justice Drayton Nabers.jpg

[edit]

 Delete Alabama state works are not US federal government work so the license is false, besides the source does not link to the image Ww2censor (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isla Mujeres QRoo Mexico.png

[edit]

Wikipedia cannot be an author or donate copyright Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yota Space - MSA Visuals - Body Paintings Installation.jpg

[edit]

This screenshot is an art and installation, so OTRS-permission from artist (Body Paintings?) is needed.
Этот скриншот – искусство и инсталляция. По-моему он защищен авторскими правами, так что OTRS-разрешение от автора нужно. Taivo (talk) 09:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Yota Space - Jason Bruges - Peasouper Installation.jpg

[edit]

There's no freedom of panorama in Russia (except for architecture), so OTRS-permission from installation artist is needed.
В России существует ru:свобода панорамы только для архитектуры, так что OTRS-разрешение от автора инсталляции нужно. Taivo (talk) 09:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Fiestas 2016 158.jpg

[edit]

OTRS-permission from photographer Antonio J. Hortal (look description) is needed. Taivo (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 23:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brug 68

[edit]

Category:Brug 68 is replaced by Category:Brug 68, Aalmoezeniersbrug. --Io Herodotus (talk) 05:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- has a redirect. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:14, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Jolson-al 1934.jpg

[edit]

Film still from Going to Heaven on a Mule [9], likely to be copyrighted and certainly not published for the first time outside of the USA. — Racconish ☎ 06:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non c'è nessuna violazione di copyright, se questo è il problema. Immagine pubblicata nel 1934 in Italia sul periodico ECO DEL CINEMA e lì il copyright è scaduto nel 1955 !!. Non c'è nessuna prova che sia stato richiesto oppure rinnovato un copyright in altri Paesi e la prova negativa è impossibile. Non cancellare per non impoverire Commons.--Francescosaverio50 (talk) 13:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination - The fact that the still may be out of copyright in other countries does not change the fact that it is still under copyright in the USA, which is the source country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:15, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Young-loretta ramona 1936.jpg

[edit]

Derivative of an American still [10] likely copyrighted and certainly not first published outside the USA — Racconish ☎ 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non c'è nessuna violazione di copyright, se questo è il problema. Immagine pubblicata nel 1934 in Italia sul periodico ECO DEL CINEMA e lì il copyright è scaduto nel 1957 !!. Non c'è nessuna prova che sia stato richiesto oppure rinnovato un copyright in altri Paesi e la prova negativa è impossibile. Non cancellare per non impoverire Commons.--Francescosaverio50 (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The fact that the still may be out of copyright in other countries does not change the fact that it is still under copyright in the USA, which is the source country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Loy-myrna whipsaw 1936.jpg

[edit]

Film still first published in the USA and likely to be copyrighted [11] — Racconish ☎ 06:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Non c'è nessuna violazione di copyright, se questo è il problema. Immagine pubblicata nel 1936 in Italia sul periodico ECO DEL CINEMA e lì il copyright è scaduto nel 1957 !!. Non c'è nessuna prova che sia stato richiesto oppure rinnovato un copyright in altri Paesi e la prova negativa è impossibile. Non cancellare per non impoverire Commons.--Francescosaverio50 (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: The fact that the still may be out of copyright in other countries does not change the fact that it is still under copyright in the USA, which is the source country. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Selbstbildnis - Hans Frost, 1959.png

[edit]

Künstler erst 1975 gestorben. Keine Freigabe der Nachlassverwaltung ersichtlich. Artmax (talk) 10:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das Bild befindet sich in meinem Besitzt, ich denke das berechtigt mich zum veröffentlichen! LG Enrico De Mattia (talk) 12:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist leider eine oft vorkommende Fehleinschätzung. Als Eigentümer hast Du nur das absolute Recht, das Bild auszustellen, zu verkaufen oder zu vernichten. Das weitergehende Verwertungsrecht (öffentliche Abbildungen!) hat nur der Rechteinhaber (Erbe). --Artmax (talk) 08:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Owning a work of art does not give you the right to freely license it any more than owning a book gives you the right to make and sell copies of it. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by HistorianStory (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Artwork of Frank Walter, who only died in 2009: http://www.inglebygallery.com/events/frank-walter-pavilion-antigua-barbuda-venice-biennale/.

Cordless Larry (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by HistorianStory (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Marked as copyright.

Cordless Larry (talk) 17:27, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Odysseus.pdf

[edit]

Who is translator? EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a word-for-word translation, it is an adaptation by myself. The basic story is obviously written by Homer but the words and scenes and dialogue are mine. Henry chianski (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: out of scope. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mural Parc Félix-Antoine-Savard.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,désolé, j'étais trop fatigué par les centaines d'images importées, je n'ai pas pensé au copyvio! Par contre, j'ai trouvé ce document de la ville de Montréal qui indique que les murales sont dans le domaine du public art page 2 ! Cordialement. Hello, sorry i was too tired by the hundreds of imported images, I did not think copyright ! But I found this document (city of Montreal) which indicates that the murals are in the domain of public art ville de Montréal page 2! Thank you --Great11 (talk) 21:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: They may or may not be public art, but the right to freely license the work still rests with the painter. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Parc Charles-Mayer Montréal, cartopartie organisée par Open Street Map Montréal12.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,désolé, j'étais trop fatigué par les centaines d'images importées, je n'ai pas pensé au copyvio! Par contre, j'ai trouvé ce document de la ville de Montréal qui indique que les murales sont dans le domaine du public art page 2 ! Cordialement. Hello, sorry i was too tired by the hundreds of imported images, I did not think copyright ! But I found this document (city of Montreal) which indicates that the murals are in the domain of public art ville de Montréal page 2! Thank you!--Great11 (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Parc Charles-Mayer Montréal, cartopartie organisée par Open Street Map Montréal 5.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,désolé, j'étais trop fatigué par les centaines d'images importées, je n'ai pas pensé au copyvio! Par contre, j'ai trouvé ce document de la ville de Montréal qui indique que les murales sont dans le domaine du public art page 2 ! Cordialement. Hello, sorry i was too tired by the hundreds of imported images, I did not think copyright ! But I found this document (city of Montreal) which indicates that the murals are in the domain of public art ville de Montréal page 2! Thank you!--Great11 (talk) 09:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Parc Charles-Mayer Montréal, cartopartie organisée par Open Street Map Montréal6.jpg

[edit]

Derivative work. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour,désolé, j'étais trop fatigué par les centaines d'images importées, je n'ai pas pensé au copyvio! Par contre, j'ai trouvé ce document de la ville de Montréal qui indique que les murales sont dans le domaine du public art page 2 ! Cordialement. Hello, sorry i was too tired by the hundreds of imported images, I did not think copyright ! But I found this document (city of Montreal) which indicates that the murals are in the domain of public art ville de Montréal page 2! Thank you!--Great11 (talk) 09:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


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

File:Spandauer Vereinssynagoge.jpg

[edit]

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. No indication that the author would have died before 1947. Jcb (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No reason for deletion. Pic taken more than 100 years ago. --axel (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We use 120 years as a cut-off if the author is unknown and the PMA+70 rule applies. For such cases we have {{PD-old-assumed}}. But 'circa 1900' could e.g. mean 1905, which is clearly not yet 120 years ago. Jcb (talk) 15:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Pic was uploaded ten years ago and no one reclamed a copyright in that long time. And you only want to delete it, cause a self given rule is speaking of 120 years an d not 110. What a bureaucratic behavior. --axel (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:29, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Arado 234B 2.jpg

[edit]

No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly looks like a photo taken by a US armed force photographer in 1945 or 1946 - what kind of supporting evidence do we need? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 16:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At this moment we can only guess who took the picture of this German plane. Original uploader did not tell where they found the image. If we could find it at a US Navy website, it would be fine. But before nominating I did a reverse image search, and I could not find it at a US government website. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found an unofficial mention here, about a third of the way down the page: [12] "Arado Ar 234B-1, (Wk. Nr. 140489), 8H+EH, Watson’s Whizzers 202, USA 5, USN (Bu No. 121445), Jane I. This aircraft was scrapped at the Naval Air Test Center (NATC) Patuxent River, Maryland. (USN Photos)" mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to this guy, the plane was stricken of the US lists 31 Dec 1946 and later scrapped. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:14, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: In order to keep this image, it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was made by a Federal employee (including military) in the course of his duties. This could easily be a shot taken by any miliatry person outisde of his official duties. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Chauncey Depew, Senator Perkins, and Governor Whitman of New York, at GOP Convention, 1916, Chicago, Ill..webm

[edit]

this was made in 1916 but is licensed under pd-old-100 which is almost certainly the wrong license Daphne Lantier 19:50, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original content is from 1916. It was uploaded to the internet in 2016. SecretName101 (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Published/Created United States : Pathe News, 1916. U.S." SecretName101 (talk) 19:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't add up to pd-old-100 which means the author/maker of the video died 100 years ago, within months of making this video. The proper license needs to be found. Daphne Lantier 19:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it to pd-1923. SecretName101 (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please add the author. Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: no valid reason for deletion - certainly PD-1923. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Mailbox (4468446690).jpg

[edit]

Does Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:R2-D2 mailboxes apply to this image as well? This one is in Japan. John of Reading (talk) 20:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: No FOP in either place. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sra Granja 1979.jpg

[edit]

No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


 Keep

The author of the file is an uncle of mine. Free use of the picture. --Helder Robalo (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask your uncle to contact OTRS. Jcb (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:ARGOS Launch, 23 Feb 1999.jpeg

[edit]

No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Keep I added source, author, and date; shame on the uploader, transferor, and nominator for not doing that themselves. I also notified the responsible humans; shame on the nominator for not notifying them. As a work of the United States Air Force, this photo is in the Public Domain, so I dispute the nominator's claim of "unknown copyright situation."   — Jeff G. ツ 13:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please provide any evidence that this comes indeed from the USAF. You cannot just assume a source. I did a reverse image search before nominating and could not track it back to a USAF site. Please do not randomly get angry with people while you are the one who seems actually mistaken here. Jcb (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's necessary to "shame" anyone here. We all make mistakes, even users in 2007 were capable of it. But this photo was tagged on upload at the time with USAF attribution. The lack of presence of the photo on a USAF publicly accessible photo database or webpage does not necessarily mean it was not taken by them. At the time of upload, it may well have been accessible on the web. These military websites are not very comprehensive and I came across multiple broken .mil links during my research. Initially when I judged the context of this photo, I thought it might be fair to say that not many private citizens could really have the access to take this type of photograph: the launch took place at an air force base, and with consideration for security in mind it might not have been possible for anyone other than an Air Force photographer, or NASA personnel. I came across this news article which contains a photograph of the ARGOS on 23 Feb 1999 (it is 1 of 3 including the suspect, that I was able to find). The photo is credited to Santa Maria Times as a file photo. The perspective looks a little bit more compressed and further away than the suspect photo here, but I think it leaves an open question whether or not private journalists were able to take photos that night (leaving room for this suspect to have been a private photo). In opposition of this, File:CloudSat-CALIPSO Launch Successfully, Image of the Day DVIDS749611.jpg, a photo from 2006 at the same air force base shows a satelite launch from a similar angle as the suspect (if not, a little bit further away): and this is a NASA photo. [For other's references, the only other images I could find of this rocket/spacecraft: [13], [14]]. I accept that this talk about camera angles is just my perspective and speculation in the end, but I believe it is a fair assumption that the USAF is associated with the creation of this photograph, as designated by the enwiki uploader at the time, and given the unlikelihood that anyone else had the capability to create it. seb26 (talk) 03:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: It must be proven beyond a significant doubt that thisis a USAF image -- given that there are similar civilian images cited above, that proof is clearly not present. Note that the burden of proof is on those who want to keep an image -- "a fair assumption" is far from meeting that burden of proof. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Anglo-norman (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This gallery is composed of unlikely own work, unified by having no sources to help apply proper licenses: sources are all own work. Obviously this is impossible for travel posters, older photos, older drawings, pictures of 3D objects, photographs obviously copied from other sources due to size and/or other distinguishing marks and so on. It's a lovely collection of images, some of which might be old enough to be properly licensed, but for which insufficient information has been provided for others to be helpful with licenses. Even the obviously old pictures are given contemporary dates, no authors, and no clues.

Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tous ces fichiers viennent soit de ma collection personnelle, soit de mes travaux (mais comment prouver que j'ai pris telle ou telle photo ?), soit de ma famille, soit de mes correspondants , comme le président de l'association des amis du maréchal Lyautey. Si vous connaissiez mon nom, vous comprendriez pourquoi ces accusations sont infondées pour une bonne part des photos. Pour les autres, j'admets qu'elles ne sont pas "own work", mais je ne sais pas comment les enregistrer. Merci de me le dire. Les dates contemporaines que vous relevez correspondent à la suggestion d'enregistrement de Wikimedia, que j'ai acceptée sans me poser de questions...

Vous y rajoutez même des fichiers sur lesquels je me suis déjà justifié comme Ferdinand Guillebot de Nerville, transmis par mon cousin qui est son petit-fils ! C'est totalement décourageant. --Anglo-norman (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation of foregoing... "All these files come either from my personal collection or from my work (but how to prove that I took this or that photograph), either from my family or from my correspondents, such as the president of the Friends of Marshal Lyautey. If you knew my name, you would understand why these accusations are unfounded for a good part of the photos. For others, I admit that they are not "own work", but I do not know how to save them. thank you for telling me

You even add files on which I have already justified myself as Ferdinand Guillebot de Nerville, transmitted by my cousin who is his grandson! It is totally discouraging."

@Anglo-norman Therefore you are confirming that most of these are not your own work, as "from family, correspondents... from Getty Images... " which means that they are not licensed properly and Commons cannot host them. For images which are yours and which you can prove are yours, please file the simple process at COM:OTRS to give permission for them. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Je confirme que toutes les photos de la liste à partir de "fusain de Lucien Jonas" sont de moi (own work). Je n'ai pas compris si je devais les réenregistrer. Pour les autres, je vous demande de ne pas les supprimer avant que j'ai vu avec l'administrateur qui s'occupe de moi comment les réenregistrer proprement, car je ne les ai plus sur mon ordinateur pour beaucoup.--Anglo-norman (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Anglo-norman Please file COM:OTRS permission for the files you claim as your own. No matter who you are in real life, the processes at Commons have to be followed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ellin: I am talking to the contributor in French on the French help desk. I am explaining what needs to be done. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Madame, sur le conseil de mon administrateur, Moumou82, je vous donne la liste des photos avec leur statut :

J'aimerais bien que tous les “own work” soient laissés en place si ce n'est pas trop vous demander. Je reconnais des erreurs mais ne suis pas familier de vos procédures que même des administrateurs n'arrivent pas à m'expliquer...Bien sincèrement--Anglo-norman (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]

You say "no matter who you are in the real life", but it matters because many objects are my heritage, and so, a proof of my own work. Sincerely--Anglo-norman (talk) 09:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-norman: C'est un début, mais ce n'est pas suffisant. Pour chaque fichier, il faut fournir la source, l'auteur et la date de l'œuvre originale quand c'est un travail dérivé, et la bonne license, comme pour l'exemple que je vous ai montré. C'est à vous de corriger les informations dans la description de chaque fichier. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : Je fais comme vous dites, modifier chaque notice, sauf celles qui iront à la poubelle. C'est sûr que l'indication de la date réelle et de l'auteur (quand on le connaît) apporte un plus. Mais je bute sur l'utilisation de la licence PD suggérée par Moumou82 avec des problèmes spécifiques américains que je ne comprends pas. Du coup, j'ai pris CC-0, j'espère que j'ai bien fait. J'ai en tout cas supprimé "self". Cordialement --Anglo-norman (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anglo-norman: Voilà d'autres exemples : File:Martin-Guillaume Biennais.jpg, File:Procès-verbal de réception d'un Commandeur de la Légion d'honneur.jpg. CC-0 n'est pas la bonne licence. C'est "PD-Art|PD-old-70/100" quand c'est une peinture, ou "PD-old-70/100" quand c'est une vieille photo, en fonction de la date de la mort de l'auteur. Il faut mettre l'URL de la source pour que l'on puisse vérifier vos informations. Il est aussi utile, voir nécessaire d'ajouter des catégories appropriées. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : Je suis bien en peine de mettre des URL pour la quantité de documents reçus de l'association Lyautey, puisque par définition je ne les ai pas trouvés sur internet. Pour beaucoup c'est une première publication (vous devriez être sensibles à ce privilège !) et la majorité des photos vient de la collection personnelle du Maréchal. J'ai malheureusement effacé une bonne partie des messages, mais pas tous. J'ai encore revu la semaine dernière les généraux du bureau qui m'honorent de leur confiance, mais ils le peuvent, car cela a représenté six mois de travail. C'est aussi bien reçu au Maroc... Je m'inquiète par ailleurs de mes amis du Louvre, chargés de photographier des objets pour la notice de mon cher Daniel Alcouffe (1500 acquisitions passées au crible, mais au final, de la très bonne doc, bien encyclopédique). Il faudra que vos collègues ne me tombent pas dessus au moment d'insérer ces photos (je procède ainsi pour éviter le copyright de la RMN). Cordialement --Anglo-norman (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC) La tabatière est refaite, mais il y avait peu à corriger --Anglo-norman (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
N'utilisez pas {{PD-US}}, ce modèle est pour des documents publiés en premier aux États-Unis. Il y a beaucoup de travail à faire avant d'importer de nouveaux documents... Yann (talk) 15:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : Je travaille dur, mais il va falloir que j'aille à Paris pour certaines références. D'autres ont disparu des sites où je les avais trouvées. Ainsi, "clos de la Maréchale" sur le site du Franc-Buveur. Du coup, pas d'URL. Heureusement que j'ai leur mail d'accord. Merci de continuer le ménage puisque c'est vous qui avez la main : à supprimer "Henri Derche" (mort un peu tard), "paquebot Lyautey" (photo d'après guerre), et le deuxième "paquebot Maréchal Lyautey" (voir ma liste), pris sur internet. Je préfère le premier qui vient des amis de Lyautey et n'a pas de cachet. Bien sincèrement --Anglo-norman (talk) 08:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Il faut faire un peu de recherche sur les photographes, surtout quand il est mentionné. Flandrin => Marcellin Flandrin, mort en 1957. Supprimé. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 09:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : Victoire, j'ai retrouvé la photo à laquelle je tenais tant sur le clos de la Maréchale, pas sur leur site mais en cliquant sur "images". L'URL est donc en place, les trois des miniatures aussi.Bien sincèrement--Anglo-norman (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC) Je n'avais effectivement pas creusé Marcelin Flandrin, juste vu que c'était un spécialiste des photos érotiques. Désolé--Anglo-norman (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : ai été au maximum. Compte tenu de votre préférence pour les URL, j'en ai mis même quand cela ne venait pas d'internet. Exemple l'affiche de la foire de Casa en 1915, reçue de l'association Lyautey mais aussi depuis trouvée sur internet, ce qui m'a permis d'identifier l'auteur, Joseph de La Nézière, mais là nouveau problème : il a une notice wiki et impossible de le mettre en bleu. Autre problème, les catégories, vous me dites de les multiplier, mais celles acceptées par Wikipedia sont souvent mises en rouge par Wikimedia. Ai aussi mis des références livres, j'espère que c'est admis. Toujours trois à faire sauter (voyez mes précisions Henri Derche). Bien sincèrement --Anglo-norman (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yann : à tout hasard, je vous ai envoyé, via permissions-commons-fr (att. Yann), toutes les permissions reçues (certaines déjà envoyées à eux). Il y a en plus un petit mot sur "Lyautey 20". Vous n'en avez évidemment pas besoin pour ce qui vient de moi et de mes collections personnelles, d'autant que vous avez identifié mon petit appareil. Cordialement --Anglo-norman (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table de concordance entre les fichiers et les mails d'autorisation (les mails notés "Lyautey" viennent de l'association des amis du Maréchal Lyautey, pour la notice Lyautey, comme indiqué dans "Lyautey 20") :

ce tableau était indispensable pour clarifier un dossier plus qu'embrouillé. Si l'équipe de permissions-commons veut bien s'en charger, je lui en serai infiniment reconnaissant. Nous travaillons tous bénévolement mais vous devez savoir que plusieurs groupes de ces photos sont des inédits complets et d'importance historique majeure, pour l'histoire du Maroc ou celle de Supelec entre autres. Cordialement --Anglo-norman (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comme Ellin Beltz veut que je soumette tout à COM.OTRS, il reste à approuver trois own work, un scanné :

et deux photographiés avec mon petit appareil, Pentax optio :

Bien sincèrement--Anglo-norman (talk) 10:40, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Deleted: no movement for the past 6 weeks. I have deleted the files that were not yet kept. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:British motorway plaques

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatability between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Files in Category:British motorway plaques

[edit]

During enquires into the status of Rail Alphabet and BR double arrows logo, an e-mail back from the National Archives, raised concern that the Transport typeface and certain related materials might not be Crown Copyright (with respect to additional design rights), despite them appearing on a large number of road signs in the UK, and being practically ubiquitous.

This nomination is thus on the precautionary principle unless someone higher up then me is willing to to get an official OTRS from the Department of Transport and National Archives.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose These signs are Crown Copyright and covered by the Open Government Licence. They might need a {{OGL}} template, but they're OK to be here. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The concern is that the OGL (nor the Wikipedia template for it), doesn't explicitly say it covers certain design rights (vs copyrights). I agree with you that it would be ludicrous if it didn't and hence why I stated the nominations where on a precautionary principle. As stated on my talk page you are welcome to contact the Department for Transport or The National Archives directly to get an explicit confirmation/clarifcation.

In addition, you might also want to ask if given that is now 2017, and that some aspects of the design elements date back to 1964 ( the first time they appeared in legislation), that might in fact have actually expired.

Until there is a confirmation that they are fully "usable" under OGL, including with respect to additional design rights, I am inclined to let this DR run. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Design right" applies only to 3D designs. These signs are 2D. See section 213 of the Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988. And it's only up to the original uploader to make enquiries, and that's only if a need arises to do so. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On hold - clarification has been sought from relevant parties.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:Qualified withdrawl per the comments in the second half of Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#UK_transport-related_graphics ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless explicit OTRS provided confirming relevant design elements explicitly and entirely crown copyright and thus covered by OGL etc., Furthermore the response to emails in OTRS tickets, 2017052210014402, 2017052210016428 seemed to indicate an incompatability between OGL and Creative Commons licensing, and a need to check the status, despite the relevant document source indicating OGL status. I suggest you direct further concerns in the direction of the following contacts. (psi@nationalarchives.gsi.gov.uk, TRAFFIC.SIGNS@dft.gsi.gov.uk), because I have so far had no response from the latter on the issue raised. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS is irrelevant when {{OGL}} applies. Why on earth do you think it doesn't? Why are you still flogging this dead nag? Move on, please. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: The copyright issue does not exist, for two very important reasons. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is quite clear that regardless of the copyright within a typeface, no copyright infringement occurs when the typeface is used to create imagery, such as the files listed in the deletion review, so the underlying OGL licence is valid and no other copyright exists in these images. Additionally, typeface protection in the UK, also under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) is for a maximum of 25 years, Transport font pre-dates this, but out of an abundance of caution, assuming a new copyright may have been created when the new act came into force, 25 years from 1988 takes us to 2013 (or 1 January 2014 as a likely date) when the Transport font (once again) passed into the public domain. I'm closing this DR for those two reasons. Design Rights, if they were to exist, would not apply to road signs due to their commonplace nature at the commencement of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act (1988) which specifically excludes commonplace designs. --Nick (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PortIsabelTexasLighthouse.jpg

[edit]

This file was initially tagged by Lymantria as duplicate (Dupe) and the most recent rationale was: File:Port Isabel Texas Lighthouse.jpg Storkk (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I removed the speedy duplicate tag, since the authorship/licensing claims appear different. File tagged as duplicate appears from a cursory look to be the original. Storkk (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The images are completely identical per images details as well as per EXIF. I think that Larry Weiss and en:User:Bevo are the same person, both of them use the logo. --Achim (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: for now, please replace usage for one of the files before requesting deletion. --Jcb (talk) 21:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Tompa Miklós.png

[edit]
File:Tompa Miklós.png
Tompa Miklós

 Delete: From source: "Az oldalon található szöveg és fényképek a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház Kutatóközpontjának tulajdona és ezáltal szerzői jog védi." Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Keep

Hungarikusz Firkász nem jelölt meg okot a törlésre. Önmagában az, hogy valaki (ebben az esetben a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház Kutatóközpontja) a fénykép tulajdonosának tartja magát, még nem ok arra, hogy a szerzői joggal rendelkezne. A fénykép 1946-ban ábrázolja Tompa Mihályt. Több mint 70 év telt el azóta. Az ismeretlen fényképész fényképét 1946-ban közzétették, amit az impresszum is igazol. Sem a szerzőt sem – ha átruházta a jogait – a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház Kutatóközpontját sem illeti meg tulajdonjog a fényképen. Feltételezve természetesen azt, hogy a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház Kutatóközpontja önálló jogi személy, mivel a szerzői jog jogosultja csak és kizárólag természetes személy vagy jogi személy lehet. Jogi személyiséggel nem rendelkező szervezet (szervezeti egység) nem. https://www.flickr.com/photos/59061037@N02/32554696595/in/dateposted-public/ --Elekes Andor (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Kérlek, ne állíts valótlan dolgokat, megadtam az indokot. Azzal mentettem el a lapot.
  2. Kérlek, jelöld meg a pontos forrást, ahol a fénykép megjelent 1946 előtt. Pontos forrást adj meg, ahol ténylegesen megjelent a kép, nem pedig a saját flickr-ös oldaladat, ahova azt írsz, amit akarsz. Ugyanis (1): Ha a szerző személye nem állapítható meg, a védelmi idő a mű első nyilvánosságra hozatalát követő év első napjától számított hetven év, és (2): Ha a művet név nélkül vagy felvett néven hozták nyilvánosságra, a szerzői jogokat a szerző fellépéséig az gyakorolja, aki a művet először hozta nyilvánosságra.
Jelenleg annyi tudott a képről, hogy megjelent a forrás oldalán (ami - ugyebár - nem régebben történt, mint 70 év, ahol nem jelöltek meg korábbi nyilvánosságra hozatalt. A feltöltő sem jelölt meg ilyent (vicces azonban, hogy a flickrön azt állítja, hogy minden jogot fenntart a képpel kapcsolatban, mintha az az ő munkája lenne, de azt kifogásolja, hogy a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház Kutatóközpontja rendelkezhet a kép felett), tehát egyelőre nincs bizonyíték arra, hogy a képet ténylegesen nyilvánosságra hozták 70 évnél korábban, már pedig ha nem történt meg, akkor az első nyilvánosságra hozó gyakorolhatja a szerzői jogokat, ez pedig a Kutatóközpont. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 11:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ǃ Tompa Miklós 1946-ban szervezte meg a Székely Színházat, akkor készült a fénykép, melynek ismeretlen a szerzője. A fénykép a Marosvásárhelyi Nemzeti Színház hivatalos kiadványa volt, amit a fénykép bal alsó sarkában levő impresszum (tulajdonbélyeg) igazol. Mivel 1946-ban a Színház felhasználta anyagaiban a fényképet, így 70 év elteltével az ma már szabad felhasználású. https://www.flickr.com/photos/59061037@N02/32554696595/in/dateposted-public/ --Elekes Andor (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kérnék egy bizonyítékot arra hivatalos kiadványra, amelyben 1946-ban megjelent a kép. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by 56frosch (talk · contribs)

[edit]

This logo seems above TOO IMO

Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Einfach auf Verdacht hin gleich einen Löschantrag zu stellen, ist ja eine Frechheit. Der Antragsteller hätte mich zuvor durchaus kontaktieren können. Dann hätte er erfahren, dass das Hochladen mit Einverständnis der DUV erfolgte. So ist nur unnütz Zeit vergeudet. Hier die Ko0rrespondenz mit der DUV:

Die Leerzeilen sind dem ausdrücklichen Wunsch des Athleten geschuldet, der seinen Namen bei uns nicht veröffentlicht sehen möchte.

Grüße A

Am 08.05.2017 um 14:55 schrieb R  :

Hallo A ,

ich hab' die Daten nachgetragen und bin noch dabei die Podestplätze zu ergänzen.

Das Logo hab' ich bei WikiCommons unter https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ hochgeladen und in die entsprechenden Wiki-Artikel eingebunden:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Ultramarathon-Vereinigung https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Meisterschaften_der_DUV (noch in Bearbeitung) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traillauf#Veranstaltungen https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/6-Stunden-Lauf https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/24-Stunden-Lauf

Dann stieß ich noch auf fehlende Einträge. Für den 3. Platz liegen keine Daten vor, es geht weiter bei Platz 4 und weitere Plätze sind nicht nachsortiert. Fehlen die Daten oder wurde jemand nachträglich disqualifiziert? http://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultevent.php?event=2122 dito 2. Platz http://statistik.d-u-v.org/getresultevent.php?event=2140

Die Leerzeilen fielen mir noch bei weiteren Wettkämpfen auf, die ich hier nicht weiter aufführe.

Viele Grüße

R

Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Mai 2017 um 17:37 Uhr Von: "A " <an @d-u-v.org> An: "R " @web.de> Betreff: Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Anfrage DUV Statistik - R Hallo R ,

1986 gab es keine echten dt. 100 Km Meisterschaften. Ausgerichtet wurde ein 100 Km Lauf in Rodenbach, der den Beinamen "inoffizielle deutsche 100 km-Meisterstaft" trug. Es war deren die 3. Die jeweiligen Ausgaben 1984 und 1985 trugen ebenfalls den Beinamen, als 1. und 2.

Die Veranstaltung, ihr Organisationsteam und allen voran Harry Arndt haben mit ihrer Professionalität dazu beigetragen, dass der DLV dann 1987 die ersten echten dt. Meisterschaften ausgetragen hat. Da uns die Anerkennung des Ultramarathonsports durch den DLV am Herzen lag und liegt, beginnen wir mit der Zählung auch 1987.

Unsere Logos findest du in unseren FAQ's: http://statistik.d-u-v.org/faq.php#Banner

Viele Grüße A


Am 03.05.2017 um 00:25 schrieb R  :

Hallo A ,

schon erledigt.

Bleibt noch die Frage nach der 1986er 100km Straßenlauf-DM der DUV.

Und was auch noch chic wäre, wäre ein Logo der DUV und/oder von DUV-Veranstaltungen in Wiki Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Hauptseite Bilder beleben die Artikel. Aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen kann man nicht einfach etwa ein Screenprint dort hochladen. Beispiele: File:IAAF logo.svg, File:European Athletic Association Logo.svg oder File:BLV-Logo.svg

Viele Grüße

R

--56frosch (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files uploaded by Cruzyortiz (talk · contribs)

[edit]

Four files, four different cameras, different size and resolution. Dubious dates: e.g., File:Estadio de la Comunidad de Madrid - Madrid.jpg is claimed as made in 2014, meanwhile the same image here made on September 6, 1994. Probably copyvios.

Яй (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: PCP. --Jcb (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Krasznahorkai László-002.jpg

[edit]

 Delete Az engedély olyan képekre vonatkozik, ahol azok a forrásban "Fotó: Szilágyi Lenke, Szilágyi Lenke felvétele vagy más, egyértelműen azonosítható felirattal vannak ellátva.". Ennél a képnél ez nem teljesül. A forrásoldalon két személy van megjelölve szerzőként. Szilágyi Lenke mellett C Frau Höllerer a másik. Tehát a két kép közül az egyik nem Szilágyi Lenkéé, így nem tölthető fel az ő engedélye alapján. Mivel nincs pontosan megadva, hogy melyik kép melyiküké, a kép jogsértő. Ha az egyikről kiderülne, hogy az Szilágyi Lenkéé, akkor az maradhatna, de a másik (File:Krasznahorkai László-003.jpg) törlendő. Ezt a két képet így alapból nem lett volna szabad feltölteni, mivel nem állapítható meg melyiknek melyik szerző a szerzője, és nyilvánvaló, hogy Szilágyi Lenke nem adhat engedélyt C Frau Höllerer képére. Az még rosszabb, ha a feltöltő tudta/tudja, hogy melyik kép melyik szerzőhöz tartozik és annak ellenére töltötte fel mindkét képet, mert akkor viszont tudatos jogsértésről van szó. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A törlendő File:Krasznahorkai László-003.jpg szerzőjének Fotó Renate VON Mangoldt-ot, C Frau Höllerer-t jelölik meg. Ezt biztosan nem Szilágyi Lenke készítette. Ez szerint [15] a másik kép szerzője Szilágyi Lenke. Tehát maradjon. Tambo (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A törlendő File:Krasznahorkai László-003.jpg szerzőjének Fotó Renate VON Mangoldt-ot, C Frau Höllerer-t jelölik meg." - Akkor milyen alapon is került fel Szilágyi Lenke engedélye alatt? Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 07:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Grin: Can you have a look? Unfortunately, Google Translate is not too helpful in this case. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 09:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grin, please your help! Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 22:55, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HuFi says that the OTRS permission is not applicable in this case because it pertains only to Lenke Szilágyi's photos. The source of this photo is not exact enough; the page contains 2 pictures with 2 authors (Szilágyi Lenke, C Frau Höllerer) and we cannot decide that which picture's author is Lenke.

Tambo says that other photo's (File:Krasznahorkai László-003.jpg, which meanwhile was deleted) author is Renate VON Mangoldt and C Frau Höllerer (a grammar questions: in this case which should be here; is or are?), that means the author of this photo is Lenke. I’ve just accidently noticed this topic; I can promise that if Grin is unavailable just ping me and I’ll help you and translate the Hungarian texts. Regards, Bencemac (talk) 15:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bencemac: Thx. Hungarikusz Firkász (talk) 07:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A képet úgy tűnik Sz.L. készítette, tehát maradhat. Lásd pl. itt. --Tgr (talk) 08:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Warsaw Uprising by Haneman - Holy Cross Church - 44.jpg

[edit]

Autor fotografii, Eugeniusz Haneman, zmarł w styczniu 2014 r., tak więc nie minęlo 70 lat od jego śmierci i fotografia ta jest chroniona prawem autorskim. Prawnym spadkobiercą praw do fotografii jest jego siostrzenica Marta Kaczanowska, zaś wyłącznym licencjodawcą, na mocy odrębnej umowy, agencja fotograficzna East News. W związku z powyższym i w imieniu posiadaczki majątkowych praw autorskich proszę o bezzwłoczne usunięcie footografii z zasobów polskiej i rosyjskiej Wikipedii. 188.95.26.50 13:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment
Polski: Ta fotografia była opublikowane w wielu książkach bez zastrzeżenia praw autorskich i spełnia warunki {{PD-Polish}}.
English: This photograph was published in numerous books and meets requirements of {{PD-Polish}}.
--Jarekt (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Fakt, że była w przeszłości publikowana bez zastrzeżeń o niczym nie świadczy, bowiem w PRL-owskim prawie autorskim mimo takich wymogów, nikt formuły zastrzeżenia nie stosował. Natomiast wystarczy, że została opublikowana jednokrotnie z zastrzeżeniem, aby rozciągnąć je na wszystkie publikacje. Takich publikacji z zastrzeżeniem posiadam kilkanaście. Ewentualnie proszę zwrócić uwagę na to, czy jest to fotografia Eugeniusza Hanemana, czy Sylwestra Brauna, bowiem byli w tym samym momencie, w tym samym miejscu i jeśli porówna Pan zdjęcia zobaczy, że fotografowie stali niemal ramię w ramię, ale klatki jednak się różnią. Ponadto zgodnie z art. 124 obecnie obowiązującej ustawy o prawie autorskim utwory, które nawet były w domenie publicznej przed jej uchwaleniem, z dniem wejścia w życie nowej ustawy ponownie zostały objęte prawem majątkowym do czasu, kiedy minie pełne 70 lat od daty śmierci jego autora lub daty publikacji. Jeśli ktoś wcześniej korzystał już z tego utworu na zasadach domeny publicznej, formalnie zobowiązany jest do zaprzestania wykorzystywania go aż do czasu ponownego wygaśnięcia praw majątkowych. Pan Haneman zmarł trzy lata temu. {{PD-Polish}}. 15:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Fotografia jest autorstwa Eugeniusza Hanemana wedle Muzeum Powstania Warszawskiego. Tak przy okazji, jakie jest powiązanie agencji fotograficznej East News z Muzeum Powstania Warszawskiego które od jakiś 10-lat ma na sprzedasz ok. 250 zdjęć pana Hanemana? Co do licencji to zakładamy za o ile fotografie spełniają wymogi pl:Szablon:PD-PRL to wedle praw autorskich z 1926 i 1952 roku nie były "przedmiotem prawa autorskiego". Wedle artykułu 124 (1.3) prawa autorskiego z 1994 r.: "Przepisy ustawy stosuje się do utworów [...] do których prawa autorskie według przepisów dotychczasowych wygasły, a które według niniejszej ustawy korzystają nadal z ochrony, z wyłączeniem okresu między wygaśnięciem ochrony według ustawy dotychczasowej i wejściem w życie niniejszej ustawy. Ustawa nie narusza własności egzemplarzy utworów rozpowszechnionych przed dniem jej wejścia w życie." Wiec utwory których prawa autorskie wygasły nagle zostały objęte prawem autorskim na 70 lat od śmierci autora, ale utwory które nigdy nie były "przedmiotem prawa autorskiego" nie zostały tym objęte. Osobiście ja nie jestem przeciwko usunięciu jednego zdjęcia jeśli rodzina fotografa nie życzy sobie by to zdjęcie było na pl:Eugeniusz Haneman czy innych stronach, ale my mamy 11 (poprzednio opublikowanych) zdjęć Eugeniusza Hanemana i nie chcielibyśmy ich wszystkich stracić. Mam nadzieje ze będziemy w stanie dojść do jakiegoś porozumienia z panią Martą Kaczanowską. To zdjęcie i artykuł (którego ja napisałem pierwszą wersję) były na Wikipedii od 9 lat i nigdy nie mieliśmy żadnych skarg na ich temat od Pana Hanemana. Dlaczego są problemem po jego śmierci? --Jarekt (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musi być dowód, że zdjęcie zostało opublikowane z zastrzeżeniem praw autorskich przed 1994 r. Jak było to niestety jest do usunięcia. Prosimy o wskazanie takiej publikacji. Polimerek (talk) 16:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Chodziło mi o to, że owe publikacje, o których Pan wspominał, nie zawsze dotyczą tej konkretnej fotografii, a jej bliźniaczej siostry. Zamieszczona na Wikipedii jest bezwzględnie autorstwa E.Hanemana. Powiązań pomiędzy agencją a Muzeum nie ma. Agencja nabyła prawa wyłączności tylko do części kolekcji E.Hanemana w 2004 roku, było to 48 fotografii. Nieco później oryginały ostemplowanych odbitek autorskich przekazane zostały do MPW. Dotąd nie sądziłem, że znalazły się tam też fotografie, które były zdeponowane w East News. Wszystkie pozostałe zdjęcia autorstwa E.Hanemana, które są na Wikipedii mogą na niej pozostać. Kłopot jest z tym jednym, które na mocy umów było wpierw przekazane agencji. Odbitki autorskie zdjęć były opatrzone stemplami autorskimi, ale skoro zostały przekazane do muzeum, zmuszacie mnie Państwo do kopania w ich archiwach, co niekoniecznie może się spotkać ze zrozumieniem. Problemem nie jest Wikipedia, tylko publikatory, które wykorzystują zdjęcia z Wikipedii jako źródła darmowych licencji. I powoduje to niepotrzebne spięcia. Poszukam publikacji w zgromadzonych materiałach, choć nie wiem, czy znajdę cokolwiek sprzed 1994 r. {{PD-Polish}}. 13:23, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Zgodnie z ustawą o prawie autorskim z roku 1952, dla zaistnienia prawa autorskiego do dzieła fotograficznego niezbędne jest zastrzeżenie tego prawa bezpośrednio na odbitce. Natomiast do roku 1952, zgodnie z ustawą z 1926 prawa autorskie do dzieła fotograficznego, należały (analogicznie jak do dzieła filmowego) nie do autora zdjęcia, tylko do przedsiębiorstwa, które zatrudniało autora. W konsekwencji, dzieła fotograficzne autorów polskich upublicznione przed 1952 są w praktyce copyfree, bo ustawa z 1926 nie zastrzegała autorskich praw majątkowych do dzieł fotograficznych dla fotografa, tylko dla jego pracodawcy (który w 99% nie istniał po 1945, a przed 1952). W konsekwencji prawa te przed rokiem 1952 nie zaistniały i nie podlegają ochronie z mocy ustawy polskiej 1994, ani z konwencji berneńskiej. Zdjęcie zostało upublicznione w 1944. Publikacja np. w "Mieście nieujarzmionym" w 1957 nie zawiera natomiast zastrzeżenia prawa autorskiego na samym zdjęciu (na fotografii, czy bezpośrednio w jej opisie. Zdjęcie na dziś jest copyfree. Andros64 (talk) 12:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ustawa 1926/1952 expressis verbis

Ustawa z 1926

„Art. 3.  Prawo autorskie do utworów fotograficznych lub otrzymanych w podobny do fotografji sposób istnieje pod warunkiem, że zastrzeżenie wyraźne uwidoczniono na odbitkach.(…)

Art. 10.  Prawo autorskie do utworów fotograficznych lub otrzymanych w podobny do fotografji sposób, do filmów kinematograficznych i do przeróbki utworów muzycznych na instrumenty muzyczne służy przedsiębiorcy, w razie zaś zamówienia dzieła — zamawiającemu.”

https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Prawo_autorskie_(ustawa_z_29_marca_1926_r.)

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19260480286

Ustawa z 1952

„Art. 2. § 1. Utwór, wykonany sposobem fotograficznym lub do fotografii podobnym, jest przedmiotem prawa autorskiego, jeżeli na utworze uwidoczniono wyraźnie zastrzeżenie prawa autorskiego.

 § 2. Na filmach oraz odbitkach i reprodukcjach, otrzymanych sposobem fotograficznym lub do fotografii podobnym, należy uwidocznić rok wykonania utworu Art. 7. § 1. Prawo autorskie służy twórcy, jeżeli przepis szczególny nie stanowi inaczej.”

A tu jest pozostałość przepisu z 1926 co do fotografii i filmów, tym razem (w 1952) ograniczone już tylko do filmów: „ Art. 13. Prawo autorskie do filmów kinematograficznych i do przeróbki utworów muzycznych na mechaniczne instrumenty muzyczne służy przedsiębiorstwu, które wytworzyło film lub dokonało przeróbki.”

https://pl.wikisource.org/wiki/Ustawa_z_dnia_10_lipca_1952_r._o_prawie_autorskim

http://isap.sejm.gov.pl/DetailsServlet?id=WDU19520340234 Andros64 (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: per discussion. --Jcb (talk) 20:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 (uksi 19960341 en).pdf

[edit]

Per the response to an email now lodged under [Ticket#: 2017052210014402] at OTRS, "government material e.g. Crown copyright and Crown owned copyright should not be re-used under a Creative Commons Licence." Commons is under a Creative Commons license., as would other projects such as Wikisource, Wikipedia etc... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

amended to indicate it was the response to an e-mail were the concerns were expressed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In any event there's a concern that some of the signs shown might not be OGL as they look remarkably similar to ISO/DIN ones, which Commons has already apparently had previous external concerns expressed about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
enWS allows materials that cannot be reused under CC. If Commons does not allow this, please ensure this file is uploaded locally at enWS before deleting. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question The file currently has a OGL license; not a Creative Commons License. "Crown owned copyright should not be re-used under a Creative Commons License", and we are not doing that. Am i misunderstanding the deletion requests? I do not see the problem .--Jahobr (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is noted, but this also related to downstream use, where the explantion might not be as obvious, as it would be on a Commons media description page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also OGL wouldn't cover the pictograms, if they were from a third party, which is valid concern given their close similarity to the ISO 7010 designs, (concerns about which were expressed previouslly at DR by others.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Keep Downstream misuse is not a concern. Every license (except public domain) can be violated later on. By that logic we could not even host under the CC-license; hence it could be misused downstream too. The similarity ISO 7010 is not a concern as well. It was published to 2012-10, 16 years after this file was. If anything the ISO copied from this previous work. I consider the pictographs ineligible for copyright anyway ({{PD-shape}}). --Jahobr (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn., I've also noted that the relevant e-mail apparently wasn't where I thought it was at the time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the above, Delete unless confirmed explicitly as OGL by the relevant source. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:00, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again keep see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/341/introduction/made. Look at the last line of this webpage "All content is available under the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated" --Jahobr (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn on the logic above.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn by nominator. --Jcb (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Files in Category:The Health and Safety (Safety Signs and Signals) Regulations 1996 (UK)

[edit]

These were presumably uploaded in good faith, but the front of the relevant document (http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/l64.pdf) notes that certain illustrations and images might not be covered under OGL terms, and there is no OTRS confirming that they are. Delete on precautionary principle unless evidence surfaces otherwise.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These also look VERY similar to BS/ISO symbols which definitely aren't under OGL terms. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-06#Index:The_Health_and_Safety_.28Safety_Signs_and_Signals.29_Regulations_1996_.28uksi_19960341_en.29.pdf and https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User_talk:Beleg_T%C3%A2l/Archives/2015#Image_extraction

are the only references to this I can find to this over on Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question Apart from the OGL question. Aren't many of this imges simply {{PD-shape}}? While there are more complex designs among them that may need a proper license, many are simple arrows and bars. Can anyone realy hold a copyright for a white arrow on a green square? --Jahobr (talk) 02:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment If the images can be hosted locally at Wikisource, please ensure the files are uploaded locally before deleting. If they cannot be hosted locally at Wikisource, please ensure to involve the community at S:WS:CV before deleting. Thank you. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn : On the basis that there seems to be no clear reason to doubt OGL status.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: withdrawn by nominator. --Jcb (talk) 20:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Brug 47

[edit]

Category:Brug 47 is replaced by Category:Brug 47, Oude Brug. --Io Herodotus (talk) 11:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted: Empty & dupe, redir not useful here. --Achim (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/05/22&oldid=248124231"