Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2017/09/05
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
copyvio screenshot YouTube video "UFO Piloot - Originele versie" at 1m31s Kattenkruid (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X-Asda_YZ0&t=1m31s — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- confirming that there is no free license associated with the upload at youtube. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
According to this search result by the Youtube filter, this video clip is not CC BY or Creative Commons. It is not free for Wikimedia Commons. Leoboudv (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep: My mistake. The youtube clip link was confusing. I should have checked under 'x_YS1vsojyE'. It is CC BY. I withdraw my nomination and have passed the image. --Leoboudv (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)- Withdrawn and kept (non admin closure) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 09:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This has similar problem as Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from narendramodiofficial Flickr stream. The President of India simply does not have the rights to release official Government of India work under CC-BY-SA license even if she/he wants to, unless the Government brings in a change in the law in Parliament (which most of us might be most happy about). This results most likely from unawareness of the law on the part of his PR team. Rahul Bott (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Rahul Bott: please note the image uploaded by me is a screenshot from YouTube and not from it's website. As per YouTube support which clearly states YouTube allows users to mark their videos with a Creative Commons CC BY license. and legal code can be found here. Whereas the YouTube channel is official of The Honorable President of India which has been uploaded on the License of YouTube (there is no indication if there is fair dealing (Indian fair use) in the video or it's discription). --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 11:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
- Dear @Tiven2240: I understand all that. I did not raise any objections about your actions per se. Nor is there any problem with Youtube's licensing policies. I am contesting the Honorable President's rights to release a Government work under CC-BY-SA license in the first place, as this is not up to him. This is a case of wrong judgement on the part of the President's office. Please also have a look at the DR discussion mentioned above. -- Rahul Bott (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
- Restored: {{GODL-India}} Yann (talk) 12:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
All rights reserved; false license review by uploader Guanaco (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Zenavandenblock (talk · contribs)
[edit]New uploads of Zenavandenblock's own body parts despite the earlier deletion of 15 similar images of herself and requests both here and on nl-wiki to stop doing this. The uploads are part of her ego-boosting project "question(ing) and recogniz(ing) the power Wikipedia has these days when it comes to credibility and importance of a place or a person" and can be seen as disruptive behaviour.
- File:N267.jpg.jpg
- File:Sint-Mariaburg.jpg
- File:N11Ekeren.jpg
- File:Leon De Burbure de Wesembeek.jpg
- File:Hoogstraat.jpg
- File:Bolivarplaats.jpg
- File:Zuiderdokken.jpg
- File:N112.jpg
ErikvanB (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Nuked and blocked the account. --Natuur12 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Copied without permission from https://www.aurizon.com.au/~/media/aurizon/files/investors/documents%20and%20webcasts/2015/full%20year%20results/annual%20report%202015.ashx Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- (Picture is on page 2 of document - page 5 of file)
- Speedy: WC does not accept 'fair use'. Also, the promotion of this individual by paid editors in Austrlia/India has just come up before. First by User talk:Virtualovertake aka Virtual-overtake dot com who is now blocked on WP and now by User:SymbolStrategic aka Symbol Strategic dot com. P.g.champion (talk) 14:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily deleted by Jcb. --De728631 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Wrong version Josefawad (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per uploader's request. --Sealle (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Part of mass upload; no context to give it educational value, wrong coordinates to be helpful, out of scope. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- This tree is in Belize. I did not find this (tree with purple flowers and orange fruits) on Wikimedia Commons. In scope. Keep --Insider (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
OK, good enough for me. Withdrawn. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:01, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
personal advertisement page Sakhalinio (talk) 20:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused logo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
Lower quality of the same plant view Salix (talk) 21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo: Redundant or duplicate: bad quality
artwork depicted is not own work of uploader, needs date and author of actual creation as well as proper license. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept, changed licenseVera (talk) 15:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
I, the author need to enforce my moral right to remove this image from the market after a request from one of the models. Really apreciate your cooperation and really sorry for the inconveniences. Oneras (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused personal photo. P 1 9 9 ✉ 18:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Empty category with missing word in name, duplicating an existing one Schlosser67 (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, bad name. --Achim (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
I created it by mistake; correct name: Category:Locator maps of places in Taiwan--Kai3952 (talk) 12:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: Bad name. --Achim (talk) 14:27, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Tiny file size and professional looking portrait cast doubt on claim of own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Probably taken from the faculty pages of the University of Waterloo, as other pics by this uploader. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 05:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete Copyrighted. --It's Kong of Lazers 你好 23:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)- Keep, OTRS permission. Guanaco (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy-closed, after permission-ticket has been added by OTRS-volunteer. --Túrelio (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sahand Ace (talk · contribs)
[edit]Copyright status of background maps is unclear.
- File:Safavid Empire 1576- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1641- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1640- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1639- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire December 1638- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire March 1638- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1635- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1636- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1637- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1632- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1633- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1634- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1629- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1631- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Safavid Empire 1630- Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 264 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 257 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 258 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 256 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 263 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 262 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 260 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 259 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Sassanid Empire Map 261 AD Sahand Ace.png
- File:Arab campaign map-photo from Sahand Ace.JPG
- File:Sassanid Battle Map by Sahand Ace.JPG
Sealle (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
unused signature of questionable notability : out of scope
Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyvio game screenshot Sakhalinio (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- include
- Delete all, per nom and per COM:SS --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 14:54, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Maps claimed as own works. Some have credits on them (map by Ian Mladjov), copyright status of other original images is unclear.
- File:Imperiolatino.png
- File:Transjordania.jpg
- File:SeñoríodeTransjordania.jpg
- File:PrincipadodeAntioquía.JPG
- File:Pyrrhus domains.jpg
- File:Imperio de Tesalónica.png
- File:Culture of the First Bulgarian Empirees.png
- File:Tyre1197.png
- File:Kingdom of Cyprus.jpg
- File:Latinaegean1212.jpg + File:Latinaegean1212 (cropped).jpg (a derivative)
- File:Strez.jpg
- File:Bg-Byz 976.png
- File:Bg-Byz 927.png
Sealle (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of COM:SCOPE user-generated (and misleading) emblems; violations of COM:NOTHOST, COM:SELFIE, COM:EV. A realistic educational purpose is a policy requirement for all Commons files. All files with no such purpose must be deleted: "Wikimedia Commons is not your personal free web host".
- File:Coats of arms of Palaiologos dynasty.jpg
- File:Escudo de armas de la Dinastía Láscaris.jpg
- File:Coats of arms of Laskarid dynasty.png
- File:Theoritical Coat of Arms of Bulgaria in 13th century.png
- File:Coat of Arms of Constantine Tikh of Bulgaria 13th century.png
GPinkerton (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator's rationale. Veverve (talk) 11:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Image is a screenshot from Google Images - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@43.0766982,25.6088872,3a,75y,165.26h,84.3t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sduERb4XgyEqbLTQkoWRx6Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope: Not educationally useful. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 23:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope: Not educationally useful. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 23:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Mistakenly created with a slash at the end => not visible from the main page. JiriMatejicek (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: User's req in own ns. --Achim (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused screenshot of questionable notability. EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Likely an image found on the Internet, not own work. B dash (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: not found elsewhere online using Google Images. Renominate if actual evidence of copyvio is found. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Archivo subido sin el consentimiento del autor Soosie. (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: "all rights reserved". P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- File:HbbTV O2 TV FREE - Program.jpg
- File:Promo na HbbTV O2 TV FREE.jpg
- File:HbbTV O2 TV FREE - vybízení k telefonnímu číslu.jpg
Copyright violation. TV Screen Shots, moreover advertising.--Kacir (talk) 04:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Chen Geller (talk · contribs)
[edit]These files are music from the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, etc. Even if they are original performances, permission is needed from the composer and/or movie studio.
- File:Smaug.ogg
- File:Azog.ogg
- File:Dol Guldur.ogg
- File:Necromancer.ogg
- File:Radagast.ogg
- File:Gandalf the Grey.ogg
- File:The Company.ogg
- File:Erebor.ogg
- File:Thorin's theme.ogg
Guanaco (talk) 04:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 12:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Watermarked by people.onliner.by. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
"Wallpaperswide.com" in lower right corner constitutes a copyright statement Yngvadottir (talk) 05:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- This is obvious. - Delete - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:41, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:00, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This work is original. It briefly explained the history, nature of activities of the members of the group(s) mentioned, influences,viz-a-viz public (especially non-members') perceptions of the group activities. Writer's idea and presentation were genuine, original and an attempt to shield more lights on the topic. However and in order to drive home his points, the writer made use of existing materials from other sources or works, which were adequately acknowledged/indicated in quotation paragraphs, italicized lines, and in the concluding "References"part.
Deleted: per nomination; file consisting only of text. --Hystrix (talk) 13:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal, promotional PDF, outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
PDF text; outside project scope Guanaco (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Published elsewhere (http://twimage.info/tweet/817648345124478976) 7 months ago, so permission will be required. DAJF (talk) 05:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted four times for various reasons in September 2011. Out of project scope. ℯxplicit 06:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
a new version was uploaded a minute later, with picture metadata EasyKL (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
out of scope, bad light, ... Xgeorg (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
unused personal photo and/or potentially personality right isusses, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused personal image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
appears to be a magazine cover, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Appears to be a collage, perhaps for a hoax or joke purpose, but certainly outside the scope of Commons, even if none of the pieces are COM:COPYRIGHT. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Picture of unspecified origin, obviously not a personal work. One of many false pictures of Ottoman women with pseudo titles. Phso2 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- It is bad version of the portrait of Guiseppina Grassini by Vigée Le Brun (1805). --Удивленный1 (talk) 10:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - quick image search confirms Udivlenniy1's ID. It's from 1803 and public domain. I've already renamed it. [1] Wikimandia (talk) 10:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Remark : now that the file has a real title and description thanks to Удивленный1, this request is pointless.--Phso2 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete: unless this uploader is an officer of the organisation and has their permission to release this image freely, I doubt the uploader created the scout badge or has their permission, so cannot release it under a free licence. Ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Just another non-free image from en-wiki en:File:Yamanaka Scout Camp final 2017.png Ronhjones (Talk) 19:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope: Not educationally useful. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 23:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nirbhay yadav ksj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Too big collection for user page.
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 09988.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 0966.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 022.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 090.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 091.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 0928.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 092.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 093.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 094.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 095.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 096.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 099.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 097.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav ksj 098.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav 02.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav 01.jpg
- File:Nirbhay yadav.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission. Clearly false authorship claim at source. Jcb (talk) 14:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It seemed plausible that the permission came from the photographer, because the Flickr account used different licenses depending on the EXIF data. However you're right, we need this information to confirm for ourselves if we're to include these files. Guanaco (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission. Clearly false authorship claim at source. Jcb (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It seemed plausible that the permission came from the photographer, because the Flickr account used different licenses depending on the EXIF data. However you're right, we need this information to confirm for ourselves if we're to include these files. Guanaco (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission. Clearly false authorship claim at source. Jcb (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It seemed plausible that the permission came from the photographer, because the Flickr account used different licenses depending on the EXIF data. However you're right, we need this information to confirm for ourselves if we're to include these files. Guanaco (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
No permission. Clearly false authorship claim at source. Jcb (talk) 14:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. It seemed plausible that the permission came from the photographer, because the Flickr account used different licenses depending on the EXIF data. However you're right, we need this information to confirm for ourselves if we're to include these files. Guanaco (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Per Com:SCOPE-> self-created artwork Takeaway (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
out of scope Xgeorg (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Tm (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hystrix (talk) 14:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
out of scope Xgeorg (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep In scope. Tm (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Hystrix (talk) 14:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Needless newly-created gif with large margins; have a ton of high-quality alternatives in Category:L-glutamic acid]] DMacks (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Watermarked; obvious copyvio from http://livefmghana.com/2015/11/04/photos-gorgeous-tv-host-nana-akosua-konadu/ Yunshui (talk) 14:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
copyvio, pulled from http://flexgh.com/the-hard-truth-returns-on-joy-news/ Yunshui (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Image is labelled as "own work" however the image looks to have been photographed from a magazine of some sort, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
As the creator has been uploading various copyvios I'm very dubious in this image being theirs, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Image was uploaded by a copyvio uploader, Image certainly isn't theres - It looks to have had the frame removed but regardless I'm highly dubious this is theirs, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Image was taken as a screenshot from Youtube I think ?, Clearly not theres, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:57, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Image was photographed from a magazine - Uploaded by copyvio uploader so dubious of it being theirs, Thanks –Davey2010Talk 15:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Does not appear to have been used on any project since being uploaded in September 2014. Commons is not a web host and out of project scope. ℯxplicit 06:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted as non-notable in January and September 2016. Out of project scope. ℯxplicit 06:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Only used on the German Wikipedia, where the subject's article was deleted in July 2013. Out of project scope.
- File:Official Movie LB Logo 2011.jpg
- File:Official Movie LB Logo 2012.png
- File:Official Movie LB Logo.jpg
ℯxplicit 06:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Only used on the English Wikipedia, where the subject's article was speedily deleted in September 2013 as non-notable. Out of project scope.
ℯxplicit 06:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
unused logo, out of project Sakhalinio (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- include
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
duplicate - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crailsheim_-_Class_38_Steam_Locomotive.jpg Wagssize (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
duplicate - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Personenzug.jpg Wagssize (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
File:Met rijp bedekte bladrozet van vingerhoedskruid (Digitalis). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
[edit]this is not a digitalis, but a borage plant. FrederiqueHij (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- When something correctable is wrong, we do not delete files. --E4024 (talk) 09:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, use {{Rename}} or {{Fact disputed}} instead. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by FinnMagedon (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal photo out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope. Artistic, but useless Cabayi (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ajit bhagat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal image - out of scope
Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of the Project Scope. The image is of such a poor quality that it has no educational value. There are better images available in Category:Haapajärvi Church. Apalsola t • c 12:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
uneccesary because it overlaped File:Flag of Serbia (reduced in size, remaining highest resolution).svg Tcfc2349 (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: seems to be withdrawn [2]. --JuTa 17:50, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused logo, self promotion Apocheir (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Self-promotion, spam in description Apocheir (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Multiple issues:
- No permission, incompatible copyleft licenses. Above threshold of originality.
- Source of derivative work not properly indicated (
{{Dw no source since}}). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 15:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
User uploaded a photograph of someone else's photograph as "own work". Takeaway (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Also nominanting the images bellow of the same user:
- File:Museu barão de mauá - porcelanas.jpg
- File:Museu barão de mauá - fatos sobre o casarão antigo (1).jpg
- File:Museu barão de mauá - fatos sobre o casarão antigo (2).jpg. Rodrigolopes (talk) 11:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note: Restored all files covered by {{PD-Brazil-URAA}} (photos with not considered to be "artistic creations" under Brazil's old copyright law).-- Darwin Ahoy! 00:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
User uploaded a photograph of someone else's photograph as "own work": copyright violation. Takeaway (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal image - out of scope Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a social networking site or a host for articles declined at other wikis. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Massive self-promotion, no other edits by this user. --Achim (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a social networking site. No other contributions from the subject at Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a social networking site or a place for encyclopedia articles. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:27, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a personal photo album. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not an active or meaningful participant. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a social networking site or a place for encyclopedia articles. No other contributions from the subject at Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:28, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Empty userpage. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope? In use at a Wikimedia wiki, but like the uploader's user page at Commons it only serves to promote self with no other significant contributions from the user (only contributions are self-promotional). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not an active or meaningful participant. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Self-promotional at English Wikipedia with pending speedy deletions. Commons is not a personal photo album. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not an active or meaningful participant. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In addition to the other deletion request, the user pages of both wikis probably need to be cleaned as they have no other contributions. Self-promotional image only. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, not an active or meaningful participant. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
unused old logo, likely out of scope Ankry (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete: Out of scope. FDMS 4 13:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a personal photo album. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 19:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused logo, page on pt.wiki was deleted (see [3]) Apocheir (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably spam/self-promotion Apocheir (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal picture, out of scope. Apparently some performance at school. Jcb (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
So blurry as to be unusable Apocheir (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope of Commons: Not educationally useful. (private image of uploader) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 20:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
personality right isusses and/or family album content, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? 
Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
personality right isusses and/or family album content, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
personality right isusses and/or family album content, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Speedy (Speedy) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Advertisment needs 7 days of discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. — Jeff G. ツ 13:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Spam needs 7 days of discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. — Jeff G. ツ 13:22, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Also spam needs 7 days of discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. — Jeff G. ツ 13:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Also spam needs 7 days of discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. — Jeff G. ツ 13:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Apocheir as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: spam
Also spam needs 7 days of discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Spam. — Jeff G. ツ 13:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
In my opinion the photo is too corrupt to be useful. Taivo (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, corrupt file. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Spam for the NinjaZone company. Only used on an en.wiki draft that's been repeatedly rejected for (wait for it) spam. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:03, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Spam for the NinjaZone company. Only used on an en.wiki draft that's been repeatedly rejected for (wait for it) spam. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Spam for the NinjaZone company. Only used on an en.wiki draft that's been repeatedly rejected for (wait for it) spam. Apocheir (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:04, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The image is copyrighted by Oleg_Nikitin Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Hystrix (talk) 11:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Dit bestand is bij nader inzien géén eigendom van het Provinciaal Depot. Daarom kunnen we het niet vrijgeven. We hebben geen toestemming gevraagd van de bruikleengever. MHV GAC (talk) 10:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Samikchya kc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out-of-scope. Files are unused and the titles do not identify the images in a way in which they will (or could) ever be useful.
- File:College flower.jpg
- File:Flower and hand.jpg
- File:Flower area.jpg
- File:Buddhanagr.jpg
- File:Kathmanu valley.png
- File:Koshi area.jpg
- File:Kanchanpur.png
- File:Road way.png
- File:Bp road.jpg
- File:Gaighat area.png
- File:Buddnagar.png
- File:Pokhara sunset.png
- File:Mustang.png
- File:Nakhipot area.png
- File:Mustang trip.png
- File:Chitlang view.png
- File:Real heaven looks like mustang.png
- File:Pokhara trip.png
- File:Place you must visit.png
- File:Way to home.png
- File:Buddhanagar flower.png
- File:Chitlang.png
- File:Kathmandu area.png
- File:Matighar.jpg
- File:Balkumari.jpg
- File:Pailot baba view.jpg
- File:Bhaktpur.png
- File:Rato pull.png
- File:Lahan birds.png
- File:Pokhara.png
- File:Matidevi.png
- File:Buddhanagr.png
- File:Land of nepal.jpg
- File:Pepsikola.jpg
- File:Kritipur.jpg
- File:Tinkune.jpg
- File:Garshingpauwa.png
- File:Lahan natur.png
- File:Lahan butterflw.png
- File:Gaighat photo.png
- File:Kanchanpur photo.png
- File:Basantpur.png
- File:Home town.png
- File:Sunshin.png
- File:Gaighat.png
- File:Ghaighat.png
- File:Lahan.png
- File:Gaighat road.jpg
- File:Lahan height.jpg
- File:Lahan home town.jpg
- File:Dhulabari.jpg
- File:Khurot hen.jpg
- File:Lahan sun.jpg
- File:Lahan flower.jpg
- File:Lahan chiken.jpg
- File:Jhapa.jpg
- File:Jhapa photo.jpg
- File:Lahan festive mood.jpg
- File:Civil hospital.jpg
- File:Buddnagar.jpg
- File:Home town beautiful.jpg
- File:A big door.jpg
Cabayi (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Samikchya kc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused images with insufficient detail in title, description & metadata to be of any use.
- File:Kritpur area.jpg
- File:Royal camp.png
- File:Syangja.png
- File:Nepalthok.jpg
- File:Dhulikhal view.jpg
- File:Ghampa dhada.jpg
- File:Ghampa dada.jpg
- File:Kathmandu light.jpg
- File:Buddhanagar.jpg
- File:Makwapur.jpg
- File:Gaighat.jpg
- File:Makwanpur.jpg
- File:Makwanpur sunset.jpg
- File:Morning sunshine.jpg
Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Samikchya kc (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused photos of flowers, apparently named according to the town/district in which the photos were taken. Consequently the photos aren't usable.
- File:Dhulabari flower.jpg
- File:Khurot.jpg
- File:Khurot flower.jpg
- File:Flower mood.jpg
- File:Pailot baba.jpg
- File:Dhulikhal.jpg
- File:Laligurash.jpg
Cabayi (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Александр Заможский (talk · contribs)
[edit]This is a collection of small images with no EXIF. They do not appear in a Google search. They have limited or no categories and descriptions and no evidence that the people shown are notable. None of them are in use. In at least one case that is obviously not a selfie, the uploader claims to be the subject.
- File:Z 824d3d7c.jpg
- File:C0bFIvhXM0w.jpg
- File:X 3ff617d0.jpg
- File:X acf29201.jpg
- File:X 4e37a1e0.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SvetlanaKornilova (talk · contribs)
[edit]They are not own works by the uploader.
- File:Страница 25, каталога В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Страница 20, каталога В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Страница 24, каталога В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Страница 7, каталога В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Страница 24, каталога А. Горобиевская.jpg
- File:Страница 14, каталога А. Горобиевская.jpg
- File:Страница 19, каталога А. Горобиевская.jpg
- File:Страница 27, каталога А. Горобиевская.jpg
- File:В. Четвериков, альбом-каталог.jpg
- File:Каталог серии "Наши любимые художники", В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Содержание каталога "Наши любимые художники", В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Раздел "Иллюстрации".jpg
- File:Раздел "Открытки" (на украинском языке), В. Четвериков.jpg
- File:Раздел "Открытки", В. Четвериков.jpg
Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
No Exif Metadata in any of these images - they could all be possible copyright violations but confirmation is required.
- File:Kek5.jpg
- File:Peserta.jpg
- File:Kek4.jpg
- File:Kek2.jpg
- File:Kek1.jpg
- File:Kek3.jpg
- File:Merdeka2.jpg
- File:Merdeka1.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 15.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 16.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 14.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 13.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 12.jpg
- File:Bilik antik 12.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 11.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 10.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 8.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 9.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 7.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 6.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 5.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 4.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 3.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 1.jpg
- File:Bilik warisan 2.jpg
- File:SMKDA SPM.jpg
- File:SMKDA PT3.jpg
- File:PT3.jpg
- File:Pagar.jpg
- File:MK SMKDA.jpg
- File:Makmal Komputer SMKDA 1.jpg
- File:Makmal Komputer SMKDA.jpg
- File:Panorama SMKDA.jpg
- File:Sekolah Menengah Kebansaan Dang Anum.jpg
Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Alanscottwalker as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7 for "author/uploader request", misread copyright status
I don't get that request as 1909 is fine with PD-1923. Sanandros (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you read the Metadata there is a current claim of copyright, and I misread that there was publication in 1909, but now based on the Metadata I do not think there was in fact publication in 1909. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I will further note, that the file's licencing rationale was deleted by me, the uploader, as I am unwilling to stand behind it for the reasons already stated: Delete. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- If you read the Metadata there is a current claim of copyright, and I misread that there was publication in 1909, but now based on the Metadata I do not think there was in fact publication in 1909. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC) I will further note, that the file's licencing rationale was deleted by me, the uploader, as I am unwilling to stand behind it for the reasons already stated:
- Keep Definitely {{PD-scan|PD-1923}}. If uploader is unwilling to stand behind it, by all means delete it and inform me and I will upload and take the flack. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- You already know, I am unwilling to stand behind it. The tag you refer to requires you to identify it was published and who took the photo and when they died, which you have not done. There is still no evidence, it was published, at all. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:04, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - @Magog the Ogre: . --Jcb (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum (talk · contribs)
[edit]Modern artworks :no permission from the artist
- File:Adele Dejak Tote Bag h014.jpg Hard to believe the artist gave permission for a commercial reuse of their works, which are clearly (expensive) commercial objects whose variations are patterns or colours. I quote :"(...) note that patterns or colours may vary..." Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- File:Adele Dejak Horn Cuffs h030.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Horn Cuffs h011.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Clutch h004.jpg
- File:Adeju Thompson h006.jpg
- File:A Pair of Slippers.jpg
- File:Multi-coloured plastic bead collar.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Oppose - This is part of an early GLAM wiki project by Brighton Museums. They have permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence. All of the photos on their site are CC-BY-SA PatHadley (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2017 (UTC)- Comment Please wait for a while before deleting these. They've been uploaded by a museum, with a Wikimedian in Residence, trying to share their collection images under a free-license in good faith. While these are potentially copyrightable designs (copyright in fashion is a very unclear subject area), the timeline to process OTRS permissions (let alone to understand what an OTRS permission even means) means that the uploader deserves some time to comply with our paperwork requirements. Wittylama (talk)
- Oppose In addition to the points above, it doesn't look like the nominator approach the uploader to ask about the copyright status. When someone is clearly working for a cultural institution it would be preferable to work with them rather than take files straight to deletion. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Just uploaded and quite clearly the museum's own photos of their own collection, so no reason so far to believe they don't have the rights. Nemo 21:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
- The issue is the designer's copyright. "so no reason so far to believe" doesn't cut it on Commons; positive evidence is needed. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Hang on and see if the museum can sort out the OTRS. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment There is no evidence that the user has permission to upload the content coming from any museum, therefore the user name can very well be blocked right now as per our username policy. Secondly there is no evidence the museum have the right to license the modern artworks that have been made by artits still alive or dead recently, we usualy don't accept the licenses coming from third parties unless there is sufficient evidence that these third parties have a legitimate right to do so. Christian Ferrer (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually there is "evidence that the user has permission to upload the content coming from" the museum, because the very trusted Pat Hadley has told you that there is a GLAM wiki project by Brighton Museums. No doubt it has a project page somewhere. He has also told you "They have permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence. All of the photos on their site are CC-BY-SA". People are just asking for time to organize the wiki-paperwork, which is daunting for newcomers. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- If there is a website, legitimate to licenses photos of these works, and if this website is licensed under a compatible free license, then the sources must be added into the file pages. As trusted PatHadley they can be, there is no evidence of anything. An evidence is a legitimate source or an OTRS permission, I'm not aware of anything else. If there is indeed some kind of permission then seven days is widely enough to send these permission(s) by mail. And despite the user name nothing tell us that the user is "clearly working for a cultural institution" , username which is not proof but rather a disturbing element until there is OTRS confirmation regarding this fact too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Actually there is "evidence that the user has permission to upload the content coming from" the museum, because the very trusted Pat Hadley has told you that there is a GLAM wiki project by Brighton Museums. No doubt it has a project page somewhere. He has also told you "They have permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence. All of the photos on their site are CC-BY-SA". People are just asking for time to organize the wiki-paperwork, which is daunting for newcomers. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment I've now booked a meeting with Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum on Wednesday afternoon (10 May 2017) to help him negotiate the proper documentation of these files and OTRS if necessary. Please assume good faith. This is a museum that will potentially be able to provide hundreds of high-quality images and is in the process of developing an open access digital strategy. Alienating them for failing to immediately understand the intricacies of Commons technology and policy would be counterproductive to the Wikimedia mission. PatHadley (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Even if the account is confirmed as authorized by the museum to upload their content, that stay the question on how the museum have the right to license these works, because Adele Dejak is an alive artist fashion designer [4] [5] who likely win their money by selling their works. Then the question if this museum can be considered as a trusted source by us is not devoid of meaning. Christian Ferrer (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- In summary:
- That the museum agree to publish their work here, that is possible
- That the account may be an authorised account of the museum, that is possible but have to be confirmed by OTRS
- That the museum own the copyright on the photos, that is possible
- But the rationale of the DR is regarding potential DW issues, because if the museum took photos of these works during temporary exibitions inside their wall, that don't give them the right to license these photos, because the artist, who is alive, have also some rights on photos showing their works. Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- And even if the museum own physically the objects, that don't mean they have the rights to redistribute images of the objects. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to make it clearer than in my original statement: "They have permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence." They are a major regional museum who have dozens of experienced staff who understand copyright and licensing for their exhibitions, retail and education departments. Wikimedia Commons is new to them: this does not make them incompetent in any way. PatHadley (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- It's very good and that's what's being asked in this DR, otherwise the images have to be deleted. I have, nor I ever had, anything against the fact of waiting a little longer before to close the DR. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how to make it clearer than in my original statement: "They have permission from the artists and creators and will be organising official permission evidence." They are a major regional museum who have dozens of experienced staff who understand copyright and licensing for their exhibitions, retail and education departments. Wikimedia Commons is new to them: this does not make them incompetent in any way. PatHadley (talk) 14:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
- And even if the museum own physically the objects, that don't mean they have the rights to redistribute images of the objects. Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Kept: No reason too doubt the museum. They are they experts, not we. --Natuur12 (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum (talk · contribs)
[edit]I disagree with the result of the previous DR. There are two issues.
- 1/All the nominated files are "no permissions" cases, because there is not a single evidence (OTRS permissions for the images, or link to a source with a free license, or at least an OTRS permission that confirm the account has the right to upload in the name of a museum) that the images comes from this museum.
- 2/Worse that in this other DR opened by Hedwig in Washington, we don't have a single statement from the museum saying that the artist http://www.adeledejak.com/shop/bags/day-bags/atoti-bakuba-bag-swaady-collection/, a commercial brand!!; have agreed with this use of their content.
In the facts at this time, there is not even a single evidence that the Brighton Museum even own the content (photos and artworks).
As suggested by Jim there, an "OTRS declaration by the museum that the artist(s) had transferred or freely licensed the copyrights" could at the same time be an evidence that they own the content, they have the permissiuon from the artist, and they agree for a publication here. Is it necessary to repeat another time that the photos itself are "no permission" cases? The text in {{Brighton Royal Pavilion and Museums image}}: "as part of an informal GLAMwiki project" confirm there are no official agreements/permissions coming from the museum.
- File:Angolan comb R1217 26.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Tote Bag h014.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Horn Cuffs h030.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Horn Cuffs h011.jpg
- File:Adele Dejak Clutch h004.jpg
- File:Adeju Thompson h006.jpg
- File:A Pair of Slippers.jpg
- File:Multi-coloured plastic bead collar.jpg
Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Adding a gallery for ease of reference:
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_par_Man_Ray_(1938).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_Logo_-_299px.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Logo.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg){kind=link}
._Locatie,_Tuinreservaat_Jonkervallei_02.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFlag_of_Serbia_Fixed.svg&type=revision&diff=257314300&oldid=257313529){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_%D0%92._%D0%A7%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep 1 and 7 based on age meaning that even if these are not mass produced objects (which they actually appear to be), any original claim of copyright can be considered expired. Delete 2-6 & 8 as these are modern fashion objects that appear to have been made by hand. With regard to the copyright of the photographs, the files have original EXIF data and the uploader has given a public release by uploading here, along with a trackable legal identity; for these reasons there is no significant doubt that the uploader has correctly provided a meaningful release and an email to OTRS would not normally add any more factual verification than this. --Fæ (talk) 08:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- While I think Fae is correct that the two pieces from 1921 and 1912 are certainly safe -- no creator from that far back is going to appear and claim copyright -- still they do not pass our usual 120 year test for assuming that the creator has been dead for 70 years. So I am neutral on them. On the others, Delete -- it is completely unclear whether the museum actually has the right to freely license the copyright for the objects. Although it is not important here, note that the fact that these are hand made is irrelevant. Mass produced objects have the same copyright protection as hand made. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Though "mass production" is not always a guarantee that photographs of the mass produced object has no intellectual property issues, we normally limit that to issues of decoration, such as livery on cars or planes. The car or plane itself, raises no issue for photographs of them. Though these are marginal cases, if the comb or shoes are mass produced on standard designs, or indeed standard folk-art patterns, arguments for significant doubt are pretty limited. As for the (unagreed) rough rule of thumb of 120 years, this was for photographs, not the objects being photographed which have no known author; so in this case is irrelevant and these are well beyond the 70 year rule, which is the maximum that could apply to African countries these would have been made in, and in practice may be decades shorter. --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep Designs are in general not copyrighted see en:Fashion_design_copyright. And with the agnolan comb there exists similar designs like here 2nd row left.--Sanandros (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Adele Dejak is based in Kenya, and the artworks have to be free there too. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- There exists in Kenya a [Industrial Design similar to European concept of design. See also the IP Act with a definition of industrial designs which corresponds pretty much to our pics. So if they are protected under industrial design, the aren't protected by copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, though this change nothing that the photos are obviously not own works, see below, nor a formal partnership seems to exist with the museum except by the existence of these files, neither we are not aware if the copyright holder(s) of the photos, whether it is the museum or private photographers, are agree with the use of the photos here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: What do you count as a formal partnership? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): something official coming from the museum, or at least traceable as coming from the museum, and with a few clarifications. As I wrote in the uploader talk page, an e-mail sent to our permission system (OTRS) by the museum, or/and by an officer from the museum, with the clarifications specified : copyright status of the photos (do they hold the rights to the photos?) and of the depicted objects: did the artist(s) have transferred or freely licensed the copyrights, because while some objects may be utilitarian objects therefore in the public domain, at least 3 of them are jewellery and are protected by copyright, the bags are borderline cases. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Steve Kisko works for the Museum. Is that official enough? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): IMO no, I currently see nothing traceable and verifiable. If he works indeed for the museum then from his job mail (verifiable email address as coming from the museum), and it should therefore be easy, he should send the email to OTRS with the clarifications required "The photographer(s) transferred copyright to the museum, and the artist(s) transferred copyright to the museum for the necessary cases (e.g. the works by Adele Dejak)." and including in its maila link to this page to help the OTRS volunteers to know what images it is. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Very puzzling that you don't think this is verifiable. Perhaps the declaration on his user page is enough proof in that regard? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:31, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): Very puzzling that User:Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum, where I am administrator has not the same infos, it's the first time I see the page linked by you. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): the photos and the artworks were not created by the museum, a formal clarification that they own all the copyright is still relevant Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: That's Commons for you I'm afraid. The page contains all the same code as the en.wp user page, but the template on Commons doesn't have the same fields as en.wp so it didn't render properly. For a new user it's not immediately clear why the templates would behave differently. I'm glad we could establish that Steve does indeed work for the Museum. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): the photos and the artworks were not created by the museum, a formal clarification that they own all the copyright is still relevant Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:40, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): IMO no, I currently see nothing traceable and verifiable. If he works indeed for the museum then from his job mail (verifiable email address as coming from the museum), and it should therefore be easy, he should send the email to OTRS with the clarifications required "The photographer(s) transferred copyright to the museum, and the artist(s) transferred copyright to the museum for the necessary cases (e.g. the works by Adele Dejak)." and including in its maila link to this page to help the OTRS volunteers to know what images it is. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:26, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: Steve Kisko works for the Museum. Is that official enough? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Richard Nevell (WMUK): something official coming from the museum, or at least traceable as coming from the museum, and with a few clarifications. As I wrote in the uploader talk page, an e-mail sent to our permission system (OTRS) by the museum, or/and by an officer from the museum, with the clarifications specified : copyright status of the photos (do they hold the rights to the photos?) and of the depicted objects: did the artist(s) have transferred or freely licensed the copyrights, because while some objects may be utilitarian objects therefore in the public domain, at least 3 of them are jewellery and are protected by copyright, the bags are borderline cases. Christian Ferrer (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Note that 3 images show, modern jewellery, that is at least protected in USA. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Christian Ferrer: What do you count as a formal partnership? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, though this change nothing that the photos are obviously not own works, see below, nor a formal partnership seems to exist with the museum except by the existence of these files, neither we are not aware if the copyright holder(s) of the photos, whether it is the museum or private photographers, are agree with the use of the photos here. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- There exists in Kenya a [Industrial Design similar to European concept of design. See also the IP Act with a definition of industrial designs which corresponds pretty much to our pics. So if they are protected under industrial design, the aren't protected by copyright.--Sanandros (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Note that even if we forgot the potential DW issues, if any, these works are hardly insurable as work of their own. Examples:
- File:Adeju Thompson h006.jpg has for source "Royal Pavilion & Museums, Brighton & Hove", but as no link is provided nothing is verifiable + in the EXIFs you can read "All Rights Reserved"
- File:Adele Dejak Horn Cuffs h030.jpg is tagged "own work" but you can read in the description field "Professional images .... taken by Tessa Hallmann" and again in the EXIFs you can read "All Rights Reserved". If Tessa Hallmann, a professional photographer took the photos and wrote "All Rights Reserved", I'm wonder how, or for why, we can assume Steve Kisko has a legitimate right to license the photos, in all cases Steve Kisko have no right to call this "own work", the other photos are not less doubtful regarding their copyright status. Delete all IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to images 1 and 7 above, there are no obvious issues with the EXIF data. It may be worth specifically listing those with copyright claims. --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The images 2, 3, 4 and 5 were taken by Tessa Hallmann. For those images, we have to assume 1/Adele Dejak works are free of copyright both in USA and Kenya (or we have to assume Adele Dejak give the relevant permission to the museum) 2/ we have to assume that the pro photographer Tessa Hallmann, despite "all right reserved" in the EXIFs, gave the right to the museum (or to the uploader) to relicense the photos, 3/we have to assume that the museum have agreed to freely relicense the photos here (or gave the right to the uploader Steve Kisko to do that). In matter of copyright I'm not aware that we AGF, only evidences are needed, and the only evidences we have, is that the uploader don't upload "own works" and did not give us, any valid sources or permissions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- All true. What is needed is for the uploader, or those that were working with the uploader, to engage with this issue and explain how the images were chosen, then if they think they made a mistake or not. With regard to the two images I have voted to keep, I still feel these are under the significant doubt threshold as I find it too hard to believe that the uploader would have faked EXIF data, even while I find it easy to believe that others were uploaded before working out potential copyright issues. --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The fact the uploader did never answer here, or in the previous DR is not of great assistance, this is why I so much called for OTRS permissions since the beginning , if there is really a willingness to share from the museum I do not understand this lack of clarification, or this lack of permissions. That make me think they are not even aware of all this, which reinforces all my arguments. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't see on User talk:Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum any indication that the user was contacted with explanations on how to proceed better, or how to provide clarifications. Nemo 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader have been noticed now two times (the first time May 2 2017), if he is somewhat interested maybe he can read the notification, then follow the link, read, comment or ask question here if ever. But if it is your will, you can contact him, and we will wait a bit to see if you are more successful to obtain a clarification. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- U can even call him to contact him. And File:Adeju Thompson h006.jpg if in the exif is written al right reserved and here uploaded with a CC license then this is a kind of double licensing. --Sanandros (talk) 19:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The uploader have been noticed now two times (the first time May 2 2017), if he is somewhat interested maybe he can read the notification, then follow the link, read, comment or ask question here if ever. But if it is your will, you can contact him, and we will wait a bit to see if you are more successful to obtain a clarification. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- I still don't see on User talk:Steve Kisko-Brighton Museum any indication that the user was contacted with explanations on how to proceed better, or how to provide clarifications. Nemo 15:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- The fact the uploader did never answer here, or in the previous DR is not of great assistance, this is why I so much called for OTRS permissions since the beginning , if there is really a willingness to share from the museum I do not understand this lack of clarification, or this lack of permissions. That make me think they are not even aware of all this, which reinforces all my arguments. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- All true. What is needed is for the uploader, or those that were working with the uploader, to engage with this issue and explain how the images were chosen, then if they think they made a mistake or not. With regard to the two images I have voted to keep, I still feel these are under the significant doubt threshold as I find it too hard to believe that the uploader would have faked EXIF data, even while I find it easy to believe that others were uploaded before working out potential copyright issues. --Fæ (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The images 2, 3, 4 and 5 were taken by Tessa Hallmann. For those images, we have to assume 1/Adele Dejak works are free of copyright both in USA and Kenya (or we have to assume Adele Dejak give the relevant permission to the museum) 2/ we have to assume that the pro photographer Tessa Hallmann, despite "all right reserved" in the EXIFs, gave the right to the museum (or to the uploader) to relicense the photos, 3/we have to assume that the museum have agreed to freely relicense the photos here (or gave the right to the uploader Steve Kisko to do that). In matter of copyright I'm not aware that we AGF, only evidences are needed, and the only evidences we have, is that the uploader don't upload "own works" and did not give us, any valid sources or permissions. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- With regard to images 1 and 7 above, there are no obvious issues with the EXIF data. It may be worth specifically listing those with copyright claims. --Fæ (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Info I put a clear message in the uploader talk page. No one can say that we are not trying to communicate. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:16, 7 September 2017 (UTC)- Info I formated his user page in Commons in order to make the relevant infos appears. And I sent a mail to the email indicated there, to notify him of this and to request clarification. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
- Info I currently have a mail discussion with the photographer Tessa Hallmann. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:19, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- In my understanding of that mail discussion, the photographer took indeed the photos, for the museum, and the museum have the right to license the photo, this is at least a good point. Though several mails sent, I currently have no additional infos about potential permissions, or about lacks of permissions coming from the artist Adele Dejak. Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I have no more concerns about the photos itself after my mail discussion with one photographer. My point of view is the following :
- keep 1 and 7 as per Fae above (likely old enough),
- keep 6 (clothings),
- keep 2 (utilitarian object without "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article" Commons:Derivative works)
- delete 3,4 and 8 (jewellery)
- delete 5, it could be an utilitarian object however the designed pattern is (IMO) a "features that can be identified separately from, and are capable of existing independently of, the utilitarian aspects of the article" (Commons:Derivative works)
- And in case of a deletion of one or several images then restore these image if/when the museum send a formal OTRS declaration that the artist(s) had transferred or freely licensed the copyrights Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
- As I have no more concerns about the photos itself after my mail discussion with one photographer. My point of view is the following :
Deleted: per nomination + last remark of Christian Ferrer. I considered 5 as an utilitarian object, exactly as 2. Ruthven (msg) 11:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyrighted 3-dimensional artwork / property of Marvel Comics and the film studio Yngvadottir (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I don't know what the rules are. This is a picture taken by someone inside the film studio (a visitor). Where can I find it is copyrighted? Just curious, in the Netherlands this would possibly not be copyvio. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Richardwiki: the sculptor own the rights of the sculpture, so photos of it need to be authorised. Ruthven (msg) 11:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok thanks for the answer. PS Richardkiwi :-) (not wiki, although it's my original username). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
OTRS-permission from author Jacques Revon (still living) is needed. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy: outdoor artwork of a living artist, therefore copyrighted according to the Italian law and not freely reproduceable if it is the main subject of a picture. L736E (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Double upload same picture as: 38069 Torbole TN, Italy - panoramio (1).jpg Robertk9410 (talk) 09:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
There is no freedom of panorama in Philippines. Commons must decide, is the poster de minimis or not. Opinions needed. Taivo (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: de minimis in my opinion: the subjedct of the photo is the train station. Ruthven (msg) 11:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Delete unfortunately photos of modern sculptures in the US are derivative works and require permission from both the photographer (which we have) and the artist (which we don't have), so copyright still applies to this 2009 sculpture. The sculpture in the wide photo. though not very large, is the central focus so cannot be considered de minimis and a photo could have been taken to exclude it.
Ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. File:Sheridan Inn 03.jpg is the plaque at the base of the statue, which shows a de minimusportion of the statue (a partial foot) and the lettering on the plaque is a standard set of letters which are not copyrightable. There is no particular reason to delete this image as it does not show the statue itself, merely its sculptor and date. Montanabw (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep File:Sheridan Inn 04.jpg shows the statue as a small portion of the overall image. The statue itself is in shadow and shot from the back, thus over half of the sculpture itself is obscured; most of the body of the female figure and only the back of the male figure is visible. The image clearly was not shot to show the sculpture as the primary focus, but is shown only in context of the overall landscaping of the building and to attempt to get a photo of the entire front of the building in challenging lighting conditions without flare-outs (the tree was used to block the sun). While images can be taken to exclude the statue, the landscaping and grounds of the Inn are relevant to the overall appearance of the building. This is analogous to the image File:M5 tractor RMM.jpg, shown as acceptable at Commons:De minimis, where a photo possibly could be taken to exclude the billboard, but not easily so from that angle and perspective.Montanabw (talk) 00:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. The plaque just shows the feet of the statue, thus de minimis. Ruthven (msg) 11:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This was published on the internet well before it was uploaded here – see this page from May 2003. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Bonjour,
Je suis l'auteur de cette image et de sa publication sur wikipedia. Je souhaiterai qu'elle soit retirée. En effet, ce blason n'est pas celui de la famille Coeurderoy de Vaucharmes mais seulement une étape (erronée d’ailleurs) de son élaboration. La version définitive du blason de cette famille est déjà en ligne (c'est celle avec les palmes et non les lys). Cette image ne présente donc aucun intérêt pour les internautes de Wikipedia. Plus, elle induiraient en erreur le chercheur.
Cordialement,
Vaucharmes Vaucharmes (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
same as this: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Installation-pour-l%27ONG-CARE,-au-pavillon-des-canaux,-Paris,-France.jpg Fmvh (talk) 13:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. @Fmvh: please next time use {{Duplicate}}. Ruthven (msg) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
hedda-sterne-1964.jpg Travauxfamilier (talk) 15:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Just another non-free image from en-wiki en:File:Hedda-sterne-portrait-photograph-abt1964.jpgRonhjones (Talk) 18:47, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per ronh. Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was modified from the file "Pogled na Uršljo goro iz Kotelj.JPG" with a cartoon overlay by what is apparently a vandalism-only account. It does not serve any purpose not already met by the original image. Doremo (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Presumably non-CC-BY-SA content, larger version of en:File:Lightning McQueen.png, which is a fair use image. Teslaton (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
small, no meda data, maybe not his/here own work!!!! Reda Kerbouche (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination + the image is watermarked. Ruthven (msg) 11:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Small, no exif, the claim of a 2013 own work is not credible for a photograph that has been on the internet many years before that and is probably from circa the 1960s and pictures a person who died in 2001. Asclepias (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD G1 (test page, accidentally created or empty) (prevented by abuse filter) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 11:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Administrators: See COM:IU. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages (and a COM:IU violation) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages (and a COM:IU violation) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Cc-by-2.5 193.6.168.252 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 12:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
A user requested a Speedy for this page claiming to be a test page but this edit seems for me that other users don't see this page as test page. Sanandros (talk) 20:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Big Brother was empty before this deletion request. Those templates are out of project scope as navboxes imported from an encyclopedia, with lots of red links and irrelevant blue links. This template was obviously imported in error.
@Sreejithk2000 also imported Template:Multiple issues at the same time, and speedy deleted it under CSD G1. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
IP requested Speedy as a test page. But can somebody check that first. Sanandros (talk) 20:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Big Brother endgame was empty before this deletion request. Those templates are out of Commons:Project scope as navboxes imported from an encyclopedia, with lots of red links and irrelevant blue links. This template was obviously imported in error.
@Sreejithk2000 also imported Template:Multiple issues at the same time, and speedy deleted it under CSD G1. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
IP tagged it with speedy as a test page but can somebody check that first as it looks pretty accpetable. Sanandros (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Family Big Brother was empty before this deletion request. Those templates are out of project scope as navboxes imported from an encyclopedia, with lots of red links and irrelevant blue links. This template was obviously imported in error.
@Sreejithk2000 also imported Template:Multiple issues at the same time, and speedy deleted it under CSD G1. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. test template, unused. Ruthven (msg) 12:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: (Failed attempt at) inappropriate use of userpages. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work (http://www.themajors.net/annarbor/emus-rob-murphy-named-mac-coach-of-the-year/) El Funcionario (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality. There is a better same photo Salix (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, in favor of File:01 Bégonia de novembre à Lépin.jpg. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: done by Taivo. Ruthven (msg) 12:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages for promotion. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: but blanked. Ruthven (msg) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages for promotion. No other messages in history. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: it's a talk page. Ruthven (msg) 12:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Objects depicted are not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Out of scope: Not educationally useful. (private image of uploader; user has made little edits outside of user namespace on enwiki) Zhangj1079 (T|C|U) 22:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: in use. Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Low quality and small size copy of http://www.aspindza.gov.ge/?lightbox=dataItem-ik6i6qco, not actually own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't usually laugh at uploaders claims of own work, but I made an exception this time when I saw the tee-shirt lettering was backwards. COM:COPYVIO, the original is http://imgads.manager.co.th/Entertainment/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9600000076509 older and obviously the original. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Oversharpened, cropped version of https://www.pinterest.com/pin/775815473280354904/ Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
In use, at https://plus.google.com/+%D0%93%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%9A%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8%D1%86%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%80%D1%96%D0%B6%D0%B6%D1%8F https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/mgNTEoXF4Y7khljqFx8Lr_gpVzo9ovsqjEFfGNm11g14OG8oRHCwLnVWyldKEQ_dJrpt-LP_QED2ZolrwNDl6QkAUqR-gsp1dfG17ZQIfT4Qs6rmh-d6scuumMq7SMQb=w530-h502-p, does not appear to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marina petrovska (talk · contribs)
[edit]Incredible claims of ownership on these professional images.
- File:MONTBLANC Meisterstuck Chronograph.png
- File:Arnold & Son 1764.png
- File:Pierre-Andre Finazzi.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by President ryan mccleary (talk · contribs)
[edit]Non-credible claims of own work on these old horror movie stills, probably copied from more modern source.
- File:COUNT DRACULA.jpg
- File:THE WOLF MAN.jpg
- File:DRACULA.jpg
- File:Large creature from the black lagoon blu-ray 09.jpg
- File:Large the wolf man blu-ray 07.jpg
- File:Bridefrankenstein11137.jpg
- File:Large the invisible man blu-ray 05.jpg
- File:Large frankenstein blu-ray 13.jpg
- File:Large the mummy blu-ray 10.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Nice scissors work cropping an image down, as in this example from http://www.clinicavespucio.cl/wp-content/themes/clinica_vespucio/images/seguros.png, does not make it your own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:11, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Bllurry book cover containing derivative image/s does not appear to be own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This image does not appear to be own work, but rather copied from somewhere else without attribution. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
"Sent by the author himself to me for use." is not sufficient. Please have the copyright holder fill in the form at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: OTRS authorisation needed from author. Ruthven (msg) 12:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
appears to be a screenshot from a phone, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination (reuploaded again). --Ronhjones (Talk) 22:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The historical photograph uploaded as modern own work by the uploader. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The historical photograph uploaded as modern own work by the uploader. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Small size, no metadata, obvious fake date. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work. It's a derivative work of a photograph by an unknown author from a family archive. Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Copyright violation. I didn't find the licence {{Copyrighted free use}} in the source page.--Kacir (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
The metadata says "Copyright holder: Bill Petros Photography," name does not match that of uploader, needs permission to license a copyrighted photo. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
was deleted before. (00:13, 30. Aug. 2017 Yann (A) (Diskussion | Beiträge) löschte Seite File:Daphne fielding.jpg (Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing) GeorgHH • talk 17:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Based on image quality and file type, appears to be a screenshot. And user has uploaded non-free images of the same stadium: File:106vision 5f.jpg and File:Prime box.jpg Ytoyoda (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
double to File:Eisenwaren, Oberengengasse,Wernigerode DDR 30 April 1990 Sludgeulper Flickr 3678833455 b98bd2f49e o.jpg Migebert (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Probably not own work. No exif, small resolution. Also out of scope. Jcb (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
No indication of permission from the named photographer, Robert Charbonnet. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
No source. No authorship information, unknown copyright situation. Jcb (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
On talk page an IP requested speedy "This is clearly posted here for some sort of free advertising efforts" but advertising needs 7 days discussion. Sanandros (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Reddogsix as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: http://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/voyagin-hired-theodoric-chew-as-head-of-affiliate-and-content-marketing/ and http://www.marketing-interactive.com/rakuten-owned-marketplace-voyagin-appoints-new-marketing-lead/
In the descirption is something written that the uploader has a permission but for that we need an OTRS ticket so pls discuss. Sanandros (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. Per Reddogsix. No evidence for the uploader's PD-self claim. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Low-re picture. Copyright Michaël Delatte. Identity of the uploader Jycolette should be verified via OTRS ticket (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipédia:OTRS). Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Diannaa as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: from https://web.archive.org/web/20080605151420/http://www.sfapsy.com/Divers/liabes.htm
And what does the link proof? This is for me not a clear copyright violation. Sanandros (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Much of the prose in the article en:Djillali Liabes was copyvio, copied from the cited web page, where the photo also appears. The subject of the photo died in 1993. The chances are very high that this photo is not the uploader's own work. Diannaa (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Capricorn4049 as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: G7|*.tif has been replaced by a *.jpg (see File:Weissfluhjoch Panorama winter labeled.jpg) Y.haruo (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- File:Weissfluhjoch Panorama winter labeled.jpg is an exact copy of this, but its usability (as jpg instead of tif) is better. Therefore this picture can be deleted.--Capricorn4049 (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. JGHowes talk - 02:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Likely a YouTube thumbnail (filename), uploader has uploaded 2 other screenshot/thumbnail images via Google Search. Unlikely to be "own work". Also, photo of a minor in a non-public setting with unclear source and without evidence of consent for publication. GermanJoe (talk) 10:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Image based in another image that got deleted a while ago. Paladinum2 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sarneyoficial.jpg. Ruthven (msg) 21:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Search result from a Google Image search ("darriboy"), see [6] and [7], unlikely to be "own work".
GermanJoe (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
copyrighted scan from a book (take a look at the left border). S-Klasse (talk) 12:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Por redundante. Ya existe una foto similar Aastral (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- "Ya existe una foto similar" is not a valid argument. If the two files are "identical" (same) and not "similar" then we delete. --E4024 (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
at least one creator asserts traditional copyright on this file Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: out of scope anyways. Ruthven (msg) 21:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U3, also a COM:IU violation. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 20:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 21:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Künstler erst 1953 gestorben/Artist died only in 1953 Artmax (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Speedy delete: CSD U3: Inappropriate use of userpages, no other contributions. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 21:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Image appears to be halftoned, not an original print or image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from [8]. Ruthven (msg) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this tiny image of an arched walkway. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from [9]. Ruthven (msg) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I found this as a 2009 upload at https://i1.wp.com/www.diakonima.gr/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/pantokrator-moni-dafniou.jpg Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 21:55, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The half-toning on this black and white image would appear to indicate it was previously published before being uploaded here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment However, its copyright is likely expired, maybe changing the licence info could be enough.--Desyman (talk) 01:42, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: Published in 1963. source: Δελτίον της Χριστιανικής Αρχαιολογικής Εταιρείας 1962-1963, πίν. 5, εικ. 2. Ruthven (msg) 21:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
There is nothing in the file template to indicate that the licensing provided is accurate. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
This is the cover of the book (ساداکو و هزار درنای کاغذی). The book has been published in 1980 in Tehran, Iran by Kanoon Parvaresh Fekri Koodakan [10], which is a public entity. Regarding the Iranian copyright rules [11] this should be in public domain, after 30 years from the publication, that is since 2010. Shahrestan (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Shahrestan. Ruthven (msg) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be in Commons without OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 08:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Keep This is my free interpretation of an old logo. My artwork is not prohibited by rules of the Commons. It has no commercial value and no copyright. The original logo was not preserved now. All you can find in the internet about this label is derivative of my current work. --Alex Florstein (talk) 21:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Alex Florstein. Ruthven (msg) 22:08, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Older at http://www.haidari.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=164&language=el-GR Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Avivablass10 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Obviously images are not own work, they have flash/light highlights, you can see the edges, they're skewed sideways, etc.
- File:קבוצת נשות מכבי תל אביב בכדורסל 1917.jpg
- File:קבוצת נשות מכבי תל אביב בכדורסל בשנת 1964.jpg
- File:Aviva blass Lichtblau one of the best basketball player in Israel (1962- 1976).jpg
- File:פרידה ליכטבלאו צועדת בפתיחת משחקי המכביה השישית.jpg
- File:21.6.2017 022 וזינוק לדוגמא של דוד ליכטבלא.jpg
- File:ספורטאי עבר מצטיינים דוד ליכטבלאו.jpg
- File:דוד ליכטבלאו.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by AgnesStephanie (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small size images of someone in a musical group. Doubtful claims of won work due to tiny size and no particularly useful metadata.
- File:RadziejStudio.jpg
- File:RadziejewskiNiemen.jpg
- File:RadziejewskiNiemen2.jpg
- File:Maciej Radziejewski5.jpg
- File:Maciej Radziejewski4.jpg
- File:Maciej Radziejewski1.jpg
- File:Maciej Radziejewski.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
The U.S. has no "Freedom of Panorama" COM:FOP for sculptures. Sorry, these are lovely photos, but only the artist can license the work, via COM:OTRS.
- File:Devil's Tower National Monument Junkyu Muto Peace Sculpture.jpg
- File:Junkyu Muto Peace Sculpture at Devil's Tower National Monument.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Personal artworks by non-notable artists are ouf of COM:SCOPE. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Looks like it came from Facebook by size and resolution. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: found on twitter. Ruthven (msg) 22:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Canadian Freedom of Panorama COM:FOP does not extend to 2D works, so permission from actual creator of object would be needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 22:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Nowsza wersja stworzona: https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plik:Procentowe_wyniki_wybor%C3%B3w_do_Sejmu.png Golubioji (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 20:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Duplicate - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Locomotive_638.1301_being_greased.jpg Prussinick (talk) 11:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The linked file is smaller in size and is therefore the duplicate, not this one. Uses of it on wikis should be replaced by this one. And it's usually quicker to tag with {{Duplicate}}. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:03, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: a cropped version and in use. Process with duplicate and/or replace its usage. Ruthven (msg) 09:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Uploader states they are the copyright holder. The EXIF data shows a copyright holder of lgsphotography#steve. OTRS confirmation would be needed to verify copyright. Whpq (talk) 11:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- That is strange. On Google images I cannot find it, only two times very small. So I agree OTRS is needed. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
It's doubtful that this is own work of the uploader. jdx Re: 13:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:21, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Only one user page uses the logo. In the article (German) it was replaced. It is obsolete and is no longer used. Toppas Balance (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 09:22, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: EXIF is not mandatory and no other copies found on the Net. Ruthven (msg) 09:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination: taken from [12]. Ruthven (msg) 09:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
_par_Man_Ray_(1938).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_par_Man_Ray_(1938).jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This file will not be in the public domain until January 1, 2047 Coldcreation (talk) 19:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
_par_Man_Ray_(1938).jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
_par_Man_Ray_(1938).jpg){kind=link}
IP reqested speedy as a test page but can somebody first check that as in the history several users edited. Sanandros (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Speedy delete: Special:WhatLinksHere/Infobox church was empty before this deletion request. This template was obviously imported in error, or it's no longer in use.
@Sreejithk2000 has also previously imported lots of other templates in error, which have been nominated for deletion in the meantime or previously deleted as accidental. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, unused and bugged. Ruthven (msg) 09:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This picture depicts a building in France designed by Hyacinthe Perrin (1877-1965), who died less than 70 years ago. As there is no freedom of panorama in France, this picture should be deleted and restored in 2036. Pymouss Let’s talk - 20:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 09:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work' : rather small-sized format, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio from [13]. Ruthven (msg) 10:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
dubious personal work (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Coach_Rob_Murphy_-_Eastern_Michigan.jpg/446px-Coach_Rob_Murphy_-_Eastern_Michigan.jpg) El Funcionario (talk) 20:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: copied from itself?. Ruthven (msg) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Not in any real use. Accidentally created, only used on promotional user pages (to be deleted). Can maybe be speedy delete with CSD G1. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Info: May also qualify for CSD G4 (recreation of deleted pages). 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Not in any real use. Accidentally created, only used on promotional user pages (to be deleted). Can maybe speedy delete with CSD G1. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Found same image and same size on a blog, https://fainareti.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/%cf%83%cf%80%ce%ae%ce%bb%ce%b1%ce%b9%ce%b1-%ce%b1%cf%84%cf%84%ce%b9%ce%ba%ce%ae%cf%82-%ce%b1%cf%86%ce%b9%ce%b5%cf%81%cf%89%ce%bc%ce%ad%ce%bd%ce%b1-%cf%83%cf%84%ce%bf%ce%bd-%ce%b8%ce%b5%cf%8c-%cf%80/. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:29, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Age of image would appear to rule out own work, also small size and low quality. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
CommentHowever, its copyright is likely expired, maybe changing the licence info could be enough.--Desyman (talk) 01:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Comment It might, but it's up to the uploader, per COM:EVID. Ellin Beltz (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Dubious claim of own work on this construction diagram. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
The metadata has different information than the file template, specifically the author field doesn't seem to match. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: we need permission from Schipul The Web Marketing Company. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
If the newspaper dates from 2017 as stated, this is a clear copyright violation. If the paper is older, please provide date and proper license as it is not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment The newspaper has a date of 1994 at the top. --bjh21 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Two paintings and an old photograph, all claimed as own work, and all obviously not. Proper dates, names of authors and so on are required for upload, please see COM:EVID.
- File:Émmanuelviérinatelier1.jpg
- File:Vieuxcouvent.jpg
- File:Maisonnettes le long du canal en ville (Bruges).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- From discussion page: Hi, First, thanks for your help. I'm new. I think we can delete these two files : File:Émmanuelviérinatelier1.jpg File:Vieuxcouvent.jpg I'm gonna upload a new version of : File:Maisonnettes le long du canal en ville (Bruges).jpg Date : 1910 Author : Julien Célos I'm the owner of the painting. What do you think of that ? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:2788:405:F509:445A:9E93:AF4:135B (talk) 18:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Since Julien Célos died in 1953, only 64 years have passed since his demise. Ellin Beltz (talk) 02:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Is there an other solution ? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathtech (talk • contribs)
- Yes. Have the painter's heirs fill in and send the email listed at COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:41, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
wtermarked redondant picture with a wrong license and a false title. One of many false pictures of Ottoman women with invented pseudo titles. Phso2 (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 10:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work': one-file-upload, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no other sources found on the Net. EXIF could have gone for the retouching soufware. Ruthven (msg) 10:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
DR started to verify claimed 'own work': potentially personality right isusses, but also missing EXIF data to verify origin and claimed 'own work', hence, potentially non-free content - your opinions ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Ruthven (msg) 10:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not for encyclopedic articles. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 21:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
While our version is larger, I think it was enlarged from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/Bajrangi-Bhaijaan-villain-Roles-arent-big-or-small-actors-are/articleshow/50563907.cms and is not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, probably copyvio. --Y.haruo (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as copyright violation. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:56, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
More than likely not the original author. Found in this article and a couple of others. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted as copyright violation. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 02:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
More than likely not the original author. Found in a couple of articles see here. Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristinac77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]This group of images includes book covers, photos of model airplane, first day cover, postage stamps, framed photographs, identity cards, museum exhibits as well as photos from scrap books and photo albums, newspaper clippings, images from approximately 1940s to the present, all labled as own work and quite clearly not own work. Some of these might be able to be kept if accurate source/author data were provided. One is a painting, but again own work.
- File:Una composizione dedicata all'infermiera e paracadutista dell'IPSA Jacqueline (Jaic) Domergue (1924-1957).JPG
- File:Una composizione dedicata all'aviatrice Elisabeth Boselli (1914-2005).JPG
- File:Una composizione dedicata all'aviatrice Hélène Boucher (1908-1934).JPG
- File:Suzanne Melk pilota militare francese.JPG
- File:Una composizione di tre foto del medico e pilota Valeriè Andrè, tra cui la scheda originale del suo libro del 1954 "Ici, ventilateur".JPG
- File:Un caccia Dewoitine D 520 dalla foto d'epoca al modellino.JPG
- File:Adrienne Bolland aviatrice da record (la prima a compiere nel 1921 una trasvolata delle Ande) e capitano dell'Armèe de l'air durante la seconda guerra mondiale.JPG
- File:Foto di stampa del 1955 Elisabeth Boselli tiene una conferenza stampa sul record raggiunto ad Agadir.jpg
- File:Scannerizzazione di un articolo di stampa del 1955 relativo al record ottenuto dalla Boselli ad Agadir in Marocco.jpg
- File:Una composizione di foto dedicata all'aviatrice Maryse Bastiè (1898-1952).jpg
- File:Valeriè Andrè unica donna a pilotare un elicottero per il soccorso e l'evacuazione dei feriti al fronte durante la guerra in Indocina... da sola... e in una foto di gruppo che dovrebbe risalire ai primi mesi del 1953.JPG
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes all'epoca in cui faceva parte del Maquis di Vercors.jpg
- File:Dal blog sugli squadroni 346 e 347 della Raf una squadriglia da identificare... la pilota donna a cui il collega tiene la mano è Lise Bassaic (1905-2004), capitano nella Raf e agente segreto del SOE.jpg
- File:Suzanne Melk (1908-1951) in un'intervista del 1945 sulla sua esperienza di pilota nella Raf e alla Guardia d'Onore a Maryse Hilsz del 4 febbraio 1946.JPG
- File:Noor Inhayat Khan principessa indiana, pilota della Raf e agente segreto del SOE in due foto con i colleghi risalenti al 1942-1943.JPG
- File:Noor Inayat Khan con i colleghi della Raf (credo del 340 ° Squadrone, formato da volontari francesi). Probabilmente le autorità inglesi avevano interesse a farla entrare in Francia come una combattente francese della Resistenza.jpg
- File:La principessa indiana Noor Inayat Khan, ufficialmente pilota della Raf inserita tra i volontari francesi, in realtà agente segreto del SOE.jpg
- File:Josephine Baker all'epoca della seconda guerra mondiale con la divisa da volontaria dell'IPSA e con quella da capitano degli Ata della Raf.JPG
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes da pilota del servizio aereopostale a capitano dell'Armèe de l'air (1930-1946).JPG
- File:La scultrice Camille Claudel in due foto scattate durante il soggiorno in Inghilterra del 1886.JPG
- File:Marie (Mary) Laurent, attrice e modella del pittore impressionista Edouard Manet in due cdv photo del 1865-1870.JPG
- File:Cdv photo e litografia della cantante lirica Adelina Patti (1863-1890 circa per la datazione delle foto).JPG
- File:Indocina 1953 (2).jpg
- File:Indocina 1953.jpg
- File:Cleo De Merodè, contessa, attrice e modella nella Francia della Belle Epoque in due cartoline postali francesi di inizio '900.JPG
- File:La giornalista e scrittrice francese Caroline Rèmy (Severine) in due foto e una litografia.JPG
- File:La poetessa francese Anna De Noailles in tre foto datate tra fine '800 e gli anni '20 del '900.JPG
- File:Una composizione di due cartoline postali francesi di inizio '900 con Sarah Bernhardt in costume di scena.JPG
- File:Mlle Lamare, attrice-cantante di vaudeville nella Francia della Bele Epoque, photoglyptie.JPG
- File:Un cdv photo del 1906 di Suzanne Lemaire figlia della pittrice francese Madeleine Lemaire, amica di Marcel Proust... retro.JPG
- File:Un cdv photo del 1906 di Suzanne Lemaire figlia della pittrice francese Madeleine Lemaire, amica di Marcel Proust.JPG
- File:Il pittore Francesco Allori in una litografia di Carolina Zucchi del 1835.JPG
- File:Due cdv photo dell'attrice della Belle Epoque Zina Dalti.JPG
- File:L'attrice della Belle Epoque Victoria Lafontaine.JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca... un cdv commemorativo in ungherese di Sissi che la ritrae da bambina fino al 1898.JPG
- File:Una litografia del Bacio di Hayez, 2 cdv di Silvio Pellico, 1 cdv di Carlotta Marchionni ed 1 cdv di Cristina Archinto Trivulzio.JPG
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes in una foto del 1930 scattata a Petrepolis in Brasile all'epoca in cui era pilota del servizio aereopostale (all'epoca società Latècoere).jpg
- File:Cartolina pubblicitaria di una recente mostra sul servizio aereopostale in Brasile all'epoca in cui la società che lo gestiva si chiamava ancora Latecoere.jpg
- File:Cartolina e francobollo commemorativi dedicati a Maryse Bastiè (1898-1952).jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes con la "divisa" da pilota del servizio aereopostale in una foto del 1927-1928.jpg
- File:Il brevetto di volo di Helene Boucher.jpg
- File:9 RCAF Newspaper clipping ed feature... Paulette Bray Bouquet Weber in una foto ufficiale di propaganda delle WAAF ossia le donne che prestavano servizio negli ATA della Raf.jpg
- File:Paulette Bray Bouquet Weber alla partenza con la sua mongolfiera in una foto risalente al 1937 circa.jpg
- File:Paulette Bray Bouquet Weber (1901-1954) sulla sua mongolfiera in una foto risalente al 1950 circa.jpg
- File:Marcel Weber pilota ed industriale e sua moglie Paulette anche lei pilota di pallone aereostatico in una foto degli anni '20 del '900.jpg
- File:Scannerizzazione di una rivista del 1947 con Paulette Bray-Bouquet Weber pilota di pallone aereostatico in copertina.jpg
- File:Tre ufficiali tedeschi osservano soddisfatti un Potez 637 francese abbattuto nel giugno del 1940.JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione... Maryse Bastiè, Suzanne Tiller e il loro aereo da record del 1937.JPG
- File:Oscarallaintitolazionedunaereoaheleneboucher.png
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca... Andrèe Dupeyron nel 1940 e nel 1949.JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione... Andrèe Dupeyron in una foto del 1949.jpg
- File:Andree-dupeyron-1.jpg
- File:Andrèedupeyronfoto1922retro.jpg
- File:Andreedupeyronfoto1922fronte.jpg
- File:Andrèe Dupeyron (1902-1908) con due colleghe russe in una foto del 1938.jpg
- File:Scannerizzazione di un settimanale francese del 1956 con la notizia delle nozze di Geneviève De Galard.jpg
- File:Zoom e ingrandimento della prima pagina del quotidiano Paris-soir del 15 luglio del 1940 che tratta anche dell'evasione della pilota militare Claire Roman, catturata dai tedeschi.jpg
- File:Ristampa ed ingrandimento di una foto scattata nell'inverno 1950-1951 durante la guerra in Indocina.JPG
- File:Un capitano di sesso femminile degli ATA Raf di origine francese controlla un altro pilota che sta disegnando la Croce di Lorena simbolo della Resistenza francese.jpg
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca Suzanne Melk sull'aereo da ricognizione di cui era comandante.gif
- File:André Jacob laureato al Politecnico di Parigi e tenente osservatore dell'Armèe de l'air e della Raf.JPG
- File:Claude Raoul Duval pilota ed istruttore dell'Armèe de l'air (1919-2014).JPG
- File:Jacqueline Domergue (1924-1957) dell'IPSA (il servizio infermieristico dell'Armèe de l'air).JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca la vera Maryse Hilsz e la sua versione romanzata al cinema.JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca Marcel Lefevre (Lefevbre, nato nel 1918 e morto nel 1944).JPG
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes all'imbarco da Gibilterra e con i colleghi alla Raf.JPG
- File:La squadriglia 2 Versailles del 340 ° squadrone degli Ata della Raf in versione scherzosa in una foto della primavera 1942.jpg
- File:Maryse Bastié accanto al suo aereo da ricognizione (probabilmente un Potez 637) durante la primavera del 1940.jpg
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes.JPG
- File:Paulette Bray-Bouquet Weber (1901-1954) in una foto degli anni '20 sulla sua mongolfiera.JPG
- File:Funerali di Jaic Domergue. Ingrandimento e rielaborazione al computer di una foto di stampa francese del gennaio 1958.JPG
- File:Tenente Anne Marie Imbrecq.png
- File:Tre combattenti della Resistenza francese soccorrono un ferito in una foto del 1944.JPG
- File:Foto degli allievi del corso ufficiali dell'Armèe dell'Air del 1936-1937 con due volontarie dell'IPSA.jpg
- File:Una composizione di foto d'epoca che mostra una infermiera paracadutista dell'IPSA.png
- File:Un manifesto del 1941 che invitava anche le donne ad arruolarsi come personale ausiliario nella Raf.jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes con il suo aereo all'epoca in cui era pilota della Croce Rossa durante la guerra in Spagna.jpg
- File:Un'aviatrice - paracadutista in una cartolina postale francese della fine degli anni '30. Retro della cartolina; la giovane nella foto dovrebbe essere Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes.JPG
- File:Un'aviatrice - paracadutista in una cartolina postale francese della fine degli anni '30.JPG
- File:Suzanne Melk con la divisa da capitano dell'Armèe de l'Air e con le colleghe alla prova del Brevetto D.JPG
- File:Una cartolina del 1955 con annullo postale dedicata a Maryse Bastié.JPG
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes in tre foto datate 1923-1942.JPG
- File:Christine Jeanne De Leydet Sigoyer De Jarjayes (1755-1806?) e la sua discendente Oscar Jeanne De Leydet (1907-1964?).JPG
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto e stampe d'epoca, un ufficiale donna dei dragoni che cavalca all'amazzone.jpg
- File:La principessa Guglielmina di Prussia nel 1789.JPG
- File:Anne Marie Imbrecq in una foto degli anni '50.jpg
- File:Guardia d'Onore per la pilota francese Maryse Hilsz deceduta il 2 febbraio 1946.jpg
- File:Squadriglia da ricognizione della Raf in una cartolina d'epoca.jpg
- File:Elisabeth Boselli sul suo aereo da esibizioni negli anni '50.jpg
_Domergue_(1924-1957).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_e_capitano_dell%27Arm%C3%A8e_de_l%27air_durante_la_seconda_guerra_mondiale.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_capitano_nella_Raf_e_agente_segreto_del_SOE.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_un%27intervista_del_1945_sulla_sua_esperienza_di_pilota_nella_Raf_e_alla_Guardia_d%27Onore_a_Maryse_Hilsz_del_4_febbraio_1946.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
._Probabilmente_le_autorit%C3%A0_inglesi_avevano_interesse_a_farla_entrare_in_Francia_come_una_combattente_francese_della_Resistenza.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Laurent,_attrice_e_modella_del_pittore_impressionista_Edouard_Manet_in_due_cdv_photo_del_1865-1870.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_due_foto_e_una_litografia.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_sulla_sua_mongolfiera_in_una_foto_risalente_al_1950_circa.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_con_due_colleghe_russe_in_una_foto_del_1938.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_dell%27IPSA_(il_servizio_infermieristico_dell%27Arm%C3%A8e_de_l%27air).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_durante_la_primavera_del_1940.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_in_una_foto_degli_anni_%2720_sulla_sua_mongolfiera.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_e_la_sua_discendente_Oscar_Jeanne_De_Leydet_(1907-1964%3F).JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristinac77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]The files are derivative works (scans or photos) uploaded under CC-by-sa tag by the owner of the photograph (not the original author thus). I reckon that several (if not all) those files are in fact copyvio. The only doubt is about (real) anonymous EU works that should be correctly tagged.
- File:Marcelle Choisnet ed Eric Nessler ad un meeting areonautico l'8 agosto 1945.jpg
- File:Genevieve Lefevre in una foto del gennaio 1947 (sul retro della foto è scritto Lefevre janvier 1947).jpg
- File:Oscar Jean Marie Adele Leydet (Jo Raymond da sposata) con la divisa dei marines (1958).jpg
- File:HYDRA Le PC de la 10 me DP.jpg
- File:Oscar Jean Marie Adele Leydet (alias Jean Rose) al funerale del capitano Jacques Bertoleaud (Indocina, giugno 1951).jpg
- File:Stato di servizio di Jo Raymond Oscar Jean Marie Adele Leydet Joan Raymond da sposata.jpg
- File:7 -US-Army-Nurse-Corp-ANC.jpg
- File:Ekaterinaelydia.jpg
- File:Oscar Jean Maria Adele Leydet (Jean Rose) con la divisa da capitano della Legione Straniera.jpg
- File:Pepacolomeraviatricea17anni.jpg
- File:La green card di Suzanne Melk datata 20 luglio 1950.jpg
- File:National Parks Airways, 1936.jpg
- File:Il colonnello dei paracadutisti Roger Trinquier all'epoca della Guerra d'Algeria.jpg
- File:L'areoporto di Pocatello (Idaho, USA) sede della Compagnia Aerea National Parks Airways.png
- File:La pilota brasiliana Anesia Pinhero Machado negli anni '30 del 900.jpg
- File:An Air Transport Auxiliary (ATA) flying instructor, Miss J Broad.jpg
- File:Marysebastie1931.jpg
- File:Alix lucas naudine 1938.jpg
- File:Carta di identificazione di un pilota del servizio sanitario della repubblica spagnola (1936).jpg
- File:Brevet+Para+1er+RCP+1943 700.jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne Leydet istruttrice presso l'ETAP di PAU.jpg
- File:1er RCP dans la région de Dra El-Mizan (Algérie), 1959. (2).jpg
- File:Lucettealquierparacadutista.jpg
- File:Allievi ed istruttori dell'Ecole de l'air di Bordeaux-Merignac in una foto dell'aprile 1940.jpg
- File:Documento di riconoscimemto e medaglia militare di una WAAF.png
- File:Dalla mia collezione di foto d'epoca Suzanne Jannin in Indocina.jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne De Leydet in due foto degli anni '30.jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne (De) Leydet con il figlio adottivo....jpg
- File:Oscar Jeanne con il figlio adottivo e un modellino di aereo in mano....jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_con_la_divisa_dei_marines_(1958).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_al_funerale_del_capitano_Jacques_Bertoleaud_(Indocina,_giugno_1951).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_con_la_divisa_da_capitano_della_Legione_Straniera.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_sede_della_Compagnia_Aerea_National_Parks_Airways.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_flying_instructor,_Miss_J_Broad.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_1959._(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Leydet_con_il_figlio_adottivo....jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Looking at a couple of these images, File:National Parks Airways, 1936.jpg also appears on this Flickr page as a 2013 upload, for which the uploader marks it as "Photo by Kent Moser" (who, according to this unrelated photo by the same Flickr user, was an aircraft mechanic for TWA). File:L'areoporto di Pocatello (Idaho, USA) sede della Compagnia Aerea National Parks Airways.png appears on this page, and was present there as early as November 2007 (archive.org link). The same photo, in a less cropped form, can also be seen as the second image on this page from the Ed Coates collection; Ed Coates got the photo from Western Airlines, which he worked for at one time. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 04:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but without further information, we cannot establish whether the photographers have died 70 years ago or are still alive. Even with this information, the files should be deleted for the COM:PRP --Ruthven (msg) 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't trying to argue against their deletion; quite the contrary, I was just adding some information on two images which I thought you might find helpful, trying to make clear that they seem to have been misrepresented here by the uploader. (True, I had edited one of those images in the past, but at that time I was taking the uploader at their word. In fact, it was your deletion nomination which led me to research their actual origins.) By all means, feel free to proceed. --Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, but without further information, we cannot establish whether the photographers have died 70 years ago or are still alive. Even with this information, the files should be deleted for the COM:PRP --Ruthven (msg) 17:23, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
- delete all: even in case there wasn't a copyright issue, the informative content is too low to suggest further investigation. The potentially useful ones are watermarked or too small, but even in these few cases copyright doubts are too strong. These pictures were probably shot in Italy (some details reveal an Italian home-banking tool on the table), but aren't covered by the Italian law: the photographed pictures were taken in many countries but Italy. --g (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cristinac77 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of files and official documents from WWII. Too recent to be PD-old, unless the flying licenses have a different status.
- File:Il brevetto da pilota militare di Elisabeth Boselli datato 12 febbraio 1946.jpg
- File:Melk1947.jpg
- File:L'atto di ingaggio di Joséphine Baker come sottotenente nell'Armée de l'air (Algeri, 21 maggio 1944).png
- File:Il brevetto di volo di Anesia Pinheiro Machado (1922).jpg
- File:Il brevetto di volo di Pepa Colomer.jpg
- File:Tessera di riconoscimento di Eliot Ina May Radigund pilota negli ATA RAF dal 1944 al 1945.jpg
- File:Bollettino della Croce Rossa Francese del febbraio del 1942 tra le notizie viene riportata anche la morte della pilota Claire Roman.jpg
- File:Esempiodisecondolivellodibrevettodaturismo1937.jpg
- File:Documento di reintegro nelle F.A.F (forze ausiliarie femminili) dell'Armèe de l'air delle ultime pilote ancora in servizio in Gran Bretagna nel 1945.jpg
- File:Cartolina promozionale della pilota Marcelle Choisnet.jpg
- File:Imbrecqannemariebrevettodaparacadutista1939.jpg
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_dell%27Arm%C3%A8e_de_l%27air_delle_ultime_pilote_ancora_in_servizio_in_Gran_Bretagna_nel_1945.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ruthven (msg) 14:41, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Was speedy as above TOO but logo has just some text and some lines. Sanandros (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: I think it is ok. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : one-file-upload, hence, potentially non-free content ? Comment: file not in use at Wikimedia projects, Roland zh (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: AGF. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Art gallery photo shows art, please see COM:DW. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I think the artwork is close to the de minimis threshold, but does meet it. Storkk (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Storkk. Ruthven (msg) 10:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Unused image of people with gallery art, previously considered deminimus, but without COM:OTRS permission from the artist. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Missing evidence of permission for the photograph. The uploader wrote that the photo is from 2016, but the metadata say that it is from 2011 and this photo is published on the website of the art gallery: context, image. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. Per above. Libertybison (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: per Asclepias. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of project scope: Commons is not a social networking site or a place for encyclopedia articles. No other contributions from the subject at Commons. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep the user is active on our projects. Just blank any spammy parts (m:Be bold). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: per Magog the Ogre. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This painting is not in the public domain since its US copyright was renewed in 1991, which means it won't enter the public domain until 2059. See this link from the US copyright office about the renewal here
Libertybison (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Also note that the National Park Service webpage that is used as a source says the painting is "used with permission". Libertybison (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Apparently the US copyright office link isn't stable and I can't find a stable link if it exists. So, I've copied the record below:
- Type of Work: Visual Material
- Registration Number: RE0000544750
- Date: 1991-02-11
- Renewal registration for: GU0000035933 / 1963-04-22
- Title: Nancy Hanks Lincoln; original oil painting. By Arthur Lloyd Ostendorf, Jr.
- Copyright Claimant: Arthur Lloyd Ostendorf, Jr. (A)
- Copyright Note: C.O. correspondence.
- Variant title: Nancy Hanks Lincoln
- Names: Ostendorf, Arthur Lloyd, Jr.
You can verify the above by going to the copyright office search page here and typing in "Ostendorf" in the search box and search by name. Once you get the results, find the entry with "Nancy Hanks oil painting" and click it. If it's the same order as my results, then it should be number 8. Libertybison (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- I also found the original 1963 copyright registration, which matches the year painted on it, listed here and a short bio of Ostendorf here which says he died in 2000. Libertybison (talk) 20:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Due to copyright infringement. This is my photo and was uploaded by this person. Dejavufotography (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Dejavufotography: Can you help us showing a website where it has been used? Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 12:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: I searched and did not find a source image on the internet from which this one was copied. In the absence of such data, there is no apparent reason to delete. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
With author "unknown" the currently provided license (term is author's life...) cannot be used. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: @Ellin Beltz: feel free to correct a template put there by mistake. Ruthven (msg) 10:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
This was previously kept, but there is no information that this image is 19th Century other than the statement of the uploader, who was unable to provide a source, or an author. COM:PRP. It is also not in use. It's not up to me to fix a template for license when I do not believe this is properly licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Another version of this photograph is found here. That webpage lists the photograph's date as "before 1900". However, the source being listed in this image's summary as just an old 19th century publication does not seem acceptable. I'm going to fix the template in regards to the missing needed US pd tag which doesn't seem to be in doubt but that doesn't resolve whether the photo is in the Swiss public domain. Libertybison (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: considering the lack of overhead lines and the fact that electrification of the railway at this station (Rosé) took place in 1927 [14], the photograph had to be taken before said date. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: No evidence that it is free in the USA or in Switzerland. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
No permission given by Facebook. B dash (talk) 02:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please check source and Taiwania Justo helped to handle. Gm King (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @B dash: Is "This photo is released by CC BY-SA 3.0" not acceptable? This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 03:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo: I think that he didn't see the source of the photo or misunderstood. Gm King (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Gm King: Not really. Wait for the response of the requester. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo: The license sentence was added by the copyright holder, so it is reliable. I don't know the reason why he nominated for deletion. Gm King (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo and Gm King: Taken image from Facebook/Instagram without permission may be copyright violation. --B dash (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @B dash: Anthony Ho sent the permission to me via emails, then adding the license sentence guided by me on his facebook page. I can show you these emails if you need or doubt. Gm King (talk) 09:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @B dash and Gm King: For this complicated case, please move to OTRS Noticeboard. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 10:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo and Gm King: Taken image from Facebook/Instagram without permission may be copyright violation. --B dash (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo: The license sentence was added by the copyright holder, so it is reliable. I don't know the reason why he nominated for deletion. Gm King (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Gm King: Not really. Wait for the response of the requester. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 03:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Taiwania Justo: I think that he didn't see the source of the photo or misunderstood. Gm King (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete. The person who took the picture is the copyright holder. Anthony Ho, who is the subject of the photo, is not the copyright holder. Thus a CC BY-SA 3.0 license statement from Anthony Ho is invalid. --Wcam (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree. That's my original opinion. This is Taiwania Justo speaking (Reception Room) 02:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleteunless the photographer is identified and provides permission for a free license. Guanaco (talk) 07:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)- Now I'm
Unsure. Guanaco (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Now I'm
- Comment Uploader says But the photo was taken by his camera, he found a stranger who helped to take it when he was visiting his alma mater, does it count as Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie? --Thibaut120094 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wcam and Guanaco: If you disagree the opinion by Thibaut120094, I can show the original photo provided by the only copyright holder, Anthony Ho. Gm King (talk) 11:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Every time I start to feel competent with copyright issues, someone throws a curve ball. I've always thought of this as clear-cut: photographer owns the copyright. But now I see analysis from WMF legal and others suggesting it's much more complicated. Based on US law alone, we may have a strong case to keep the image. What about Hong Kong law? Guanaco (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- If the photo's copyright status is unclear, it should be deleted per COM:PRP.--Wcam (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wcam and Guanaco: This is the Hong Kong law about Intellectual Property [15] that you can compare. Anthony Ho is a famous actor in Hong Kong, the photo just found on or published to his Facebook. And he also provided the original photo with complete EXIF, so it is reliable. Shall we use these similar cases for reference [16][17]? Gm King (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, these [18][19] are not similar cases. In these two cases it is clear who the photographers (copyright holders) are, and they can release their photos under a free license. However, it is unclear who the copyright holder of this photo in question is, and the copyright holder is most likely not Anthony Ho, even if he owns "the original photo with complete EXIF".--Wcam (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- What things are needed to admit his identity? And Anthony Ho had already sent an email to OTRS team before. Why can't we count it as Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie? Gm King (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is still significant doubt regarding who the copyright holder really is, and Anthony Ho is most likely not the copyright holder. Given that COM:PRP is an official policy while Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie is not, this image should be deleted. --Wcam (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- @B dash, Taiwania Justo, Wcam, Guanaco, and Thibaut120094: Anthony Ho accepted my suggestion and he has uploaded the new one (a selfie that never appears on the Internet, journals, magazines and newspapers), you could scrutinize now [20]. Gm King (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Gm King: I can't read the Chinese - he is the uploader, right? If so can you change the source to {{Own}}? Otherwise it looks good. Guanaco (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Guanaco: Changed.
- @B dash, Taiwania Justo, Wcam, Guanaco, and Thibaut120094: If there is no doubt of File:Anthony Ho Yuen Tung ~ 何遠東.jpg, the old one can be deleted. Gm King (talk) 03:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Guanaco: Changed.
- @Gm King: I can't read the Chinese - he is the uploader, right? If so can you change the source to {{Own}}? Otherwise it looks good. Guanaco (talk) 02:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- @B dash, Taiwania Justo, Wcam, Guanaco, and Thibaut120094: Anthony Ho accepted my suggestion and he has uploaded the new one (a selfie that never appears on the Internet, journals, magazines and newspapers), you could scrutinize now [20]. Gm King (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- There is still significant doubt regarding who the copyright holder really is, and Anthony Ho is most likely not the copyright holder. Given that COM:PRP is an official policy while Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie is not, this image should be deleted. --Wcam (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
- What things are needed to admit his identity? And Anthony Ho had already sent an email to OTRS team before. Why can't we count it as Commons:Own work/Bystander selfie? Gm King (talk) 02:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- No, these [18][19] are not similar cases. In these two cases it is clear who the photographers (copyright holders) are, and they can release their photos under a free license. However, it is unclear who the copyright holder of this photo in question is, and the copyright holder is most likely not Anthony Ho, even if he owns "the original photo with complete EXIF".--Wcam (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Wcam and Guanaco: This is the Hong Kong law about Intellectual Property [15] that you can compare. Anthony Ho is a famous actor in Hong Kong, the photo just found on or published to his Facebook. And he also provided the original photo with complete EXIF, so it is reliable. Shall we use these similar cases for reference [16][17]? Gm King (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
![[16]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WIKINEWS_2009_10_001_007.JPG){kind=link}
![[17]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kellee_Maize.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anthony_Ho_Yuen_Tung_~_%E4%BD%95%E9%81%A0%E6%9D%B1.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination - the bystander holds the copyright. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Derivative works from music. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Mr. Eugene, please keep in mind that this audio is uploaded for project of weekly news on Arabic Wikinews, the carmen track is from the carmen uploaded here on commons. Can you help me to find news and weather beginning track on Commons so I can use them, because the tracks in the audio file are from freesound.org that is under creative commons. Waiting your reply... سمير تامر (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- You need to provide link to this music if file description. Please note that license for your work should confirm to license of music. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 23:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Mr. Eugene, I didn't understand any thing of what did you said, can you explain to me? سمير تامر (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- سمير تامر you should add the source of the audio files from freesound.org to the file description. -- Mohammed Adam (T) 09:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ok Mohamad Adam, I don't have links now but I'll add them in the 2nd Report next week. Eugene, don't delete the audio until Monday, I discovered that I used derivative works in some tracks. From 2nd Report and later I'll use music from Freesound.org, licensed "Creative commons" on most of their audio sounds. سمير تامر (talk) 12:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- سمير تامر If you use Google Chrome or any web browser go to the history page and search freesound.org and you will find the links. -- Mohammed Adam (T) 19:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry Mohamad, I deleted the history 3 days ago, because the Google Chrome was lagging these days, I deleted also the cache. That's why I cannot find the links. I used freesound.org in the weather report only, the other sounds was Carmen from here. سمير تامر (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Incompatible free licenses and unsourced elements.
- The GNU head seems to be File:Heckert GNU white.svg (with small variations). All of its license options are incompatible with the GPL.
- The GIMP version is not mentioned and likely fails GPL license compliance (GPL license not stated).
- GNU Emacs should be under the GPL too.
- GNOME is de minimis or (L)GPL? 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 15:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:49, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure but this is a registred trademark (PRV no:522470) Skivsamlare (talk) 16:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete Trademark (produkt/varumärkesskydd) does not matter on Commons (we simply add {{Trademarked}}}), however this logo might be above the threshold of originality to be protected by copyright (upphovsrätt), and whould therefore be deleted per COM:PRP. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Only simple logos can be uploaded to Commons without permission via Commons:OTRS. The uneven line crossings make me legally uncomfortable as the uploader. WubTheCaptain (talk) 00:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Not just the talk page for other reasons, but speedy delete the user page too under CSD U1 (blanked user page). I can't even nominate this with {{SD}} nor MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js because of abuse filters. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:49, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: reverted to version by Wikimedia Commons Welcome. --Guanaco (talk) 14:41, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No evidence that this representation of the coat of arms was published before 1923. Stefan4 (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- It's too old, the University was created in the 1200s. This is an interpretation of the blazon which is ancient. Keep Fry1989 eh? 20:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide a source for your claim. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- For which claim? That the university is nearly 1000 years old? Or that because of the extreme age, nearly any rendition of the coat of arms would be out of copyright? Fry1989 eh? 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this rendition of the coat of arms is old. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nor is there any that it is not. So you have to make an educated guess, and with 900 years leaning on the side of "not", that's my guess. You don't have to agree but you're not gonna make me change my guess. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:PCP, we have to assume that this is a recent rendition unless you find evidence of the opposite. Compare with File:Cambridge shield.png by User:Lupin and File:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png by w:User:Prisonblues which are obviously recent renditions as the artists were still alive when Wikipedia was founded. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- I have made my vote based on known facts regarding the age of the university and the principle of probability, and it's not changing. Fry1989 eh? 20:43, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Per COM:PCP, we have to assume that this is a recent rendition unless you find evidence of the opposite. Compare with File:Cambridge shield.png by User:Lupin and File:Cambridge University Crest - flat.png by w:User:Prisonblues which are obviously recent renditions as the artists were still alive when Wikipedia was founded. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nor is there any that it is not. So you have to make an educated guess, and with 900 years leaning on the side of "not", that's my guess. You don't have to agree but you're not gonna make me change my guess. Fry1989 eh? 22:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- There is no evidence that this rendition of the coat of arms is old. --Stefan4 (talk) 20:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- For which claim? That the university is nearly 1000 years old? Or that because of the extreme age, nearly any rendition of the coat of arms would be out of copyright? Fry1989 eh? 23:14, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please provide a source for your claim. --Stefan4 (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Delete The fact that this drawing is not a scan but a computer generated rendition makes the probability of a work old enough to be out of copyright very weak. Unless it can be proven that this file is PD, COM:PCP must apply. Kathisma (talk) 21:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- There's no proof of that, it's heavily cropped and could just as easily be enhanced than not. Fry1989 eh? 00:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Kept: I'm closing this because it is stale. A keep position is suggested by the University of Cambridge's site which itself dates the coat of arms to 1573. Эlcobbola talk 21:28, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Invalid keep closure: the page https://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/offices/communications/services/trademark/about/coat.html only identifies the age of the textual representation of the coat of arms, not this graphical representation of the coat of arms. The age of the textual representation of a coat of arms is unrelated to the copyright status of a graphical representation of the coat of arms, see COM:COA. Stefan4 (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per closure. Text of "The University of Cambridge was granted its arms in 1573 by Robert Cooke, Clarenceux King of Arms and a graduate of St. John's College, for use by the Chancellor, Masters, Fellows and Scholars as a corporate body" does not apply to or say anything about the "textual representation". The textual description later in the page is a formality on how one would render the visual coat of arms into English, see here for example. See also the history here. Эlcobbola talk 21:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- When the linked pages write "the coat of arms", they refer to the textual representation, not to any graphical representation of it. The graphical representation is just a way to represent the coat of arms as an artwork and is not the form in which a coat of arms is granted. --Stefan4 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per last DR, nothing new. Fry1989 eh? 21:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Kept: as per above. Yann (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
This file should actually be speedily deleted as clear copyright violation as it is taken from Cambridge University's logo that is trademarked, but I'm nominating it again because of the previous deletion nominations were closed as "kept" by admins who did not properly understand the guidelines on copyright of coats of arms, NOR did they understand the protection of United States copyright law, and there was no clear consensus. I apologize for the length, but there is clearly some confusion that this would be "kept" twice.
First, this violates Commons own policy per COM:COA:
Do not upload coats of arms or their derivatives directly from the web or official registries. Coats of arms drawn by users based solely on the definition (blazon) without any reference to the original drawing (representation) are usually safe for upload.
Second, putting this logo on Commons is a violation of United States law. Please see Wikipedia's own article, Law of heraldic arms with the section about the United States, which discusses this exact scenario:
A specific rendition of a coat of arms is protected through copyright law and a coat of arms can be used as a trademark and will thus be protected by trademark law. For example, the University of Texas at Austin has registered its emblem and coat of arms for use in its capacity as an institution of higher education. Moreover, such protection presumes a specific graphic design or work of art, while blazon is a description which may be widely interpreted artistically.
This is exactly the situation here. We have many other versions of the Cambridge arms created by users, but we cannot take arms that have been copyrighted as a specific work of art, no matter how old the blazon is.
I don't know the UK's copyright law on coats of arms but it is very safe to say it would also be a UK copyright violation to put this on Commons, as this is part of a trademarked logo. This SVG file is taken directly from the Cambridge University Press logo uploaded to Wikipedia in 2011 under the Non-free use rationale guideline, and it does not qualify to be on Commons. Simply cropping out the text does not make it eligible to be uploaded to Commons! The description of the logo on Wikipedia states it was taken from a PDF of an annual report, and note it is in vector format. This means it was a vector version created by a modern artist today somewhere on a computer for the University, and neither that artist nor the University of Cambridge have released it under a CC license that would make it eligible for Commons. To the contrary: The University has copyrighted this logo - look at their brand resources page and logo usage page and note that the actual page with the logo downloads is only accessible to people who have an online account with Cambridge. The copyright of their logo is VERY CLEAR on their Trademark and Licensing page:
"The University of Cambridge name and Coat of Arms not only form a key role in the internal branding of the University, but they also represent the reputation of the University externally and internationally. For example, they identify official publications, presentations and websites. As such they have significant commercial value. By trade-marking these assets, the University is able to protect itself against those who wish to benefit from its reputation by falsely implying association with the University through the use of the name and/or Coat of Arms. It also gives the University control over how its name is used on commercial products."
The general copyright rules about heraldry mean that artists are free to design THEIR OWN RENDITION of other people's coats of arms and upload it to Commons. It does not mean that OTHER PEOPLE's RENDITIONS of the coats of arms are not copyrighted to them, because they certainly are. Renditions of coats of arms that are still held under copyright (including as part of a logo) are not eligible to be on Commons. Think about it this way - blazons for coats of arms are just descriptions of what it would look like, ie color, items, placement. People create their own interpretation of these items (ie a rose, a cross, a lion). The Web is full of coats of arms that people have designed and put online that we would never be allowed to upload. Think about it this way: if Andy Warhol had painted his rendition of the Cambridge University's coat of arms, based on the university's blazon, would it be allowed on Commons? It would be speedily deleted in 2 seconds. The same applies here.
So to summarize, there are probably hundreds of versions of this coat of arms that various artists have created, and each version is copyrighted to those artists. We already have many versions on Commons that artists have designed and uploaded (see Category:Coats of arms of the University of Cambridge. Further examples of renditions of the coat of arms we can use:
- Here are two examples of a Cambridge University coat of arms we are eligible to use - taken from an 1888 book now on Internet Archive.
- Version from 1909-1910 university calendar.
But we can't even put this version on Commmons - please see page 4 of this booklet on the arms of Cambridge University, from 1931. Notice how it is the same arms, but tt's dramatically different. Even THAT version, from 1931, can't be uploaded to Commons under US-1923! So one that was designed much more recently and is very clearly and specifically held under strict copyright by the university of Cambridge, certainly fails the standard and should be speedily deleted. Wikimandia (talk) 00:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Keep Same bollocks as the last 2 times. Fry1989 eh? 00:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Please cite an actual Wikimedia policy to support your claim. Your previous argument was in direct conflict of COM:COA. It really could not be more clear: new renditions of old blazons cannot be taken from other sources. Cambridge University has clear copyright and trademark over its logo, including the coat of arms. We are not eligible to take THAT VERSION of their arms (and it certainly fails the claim that it was published prior to 1923). That's not how Commons Guidelines on heraldry work, and furthermore, it is a violation of U.S. law, which Wikimedia complies with. Wikimandia (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
- Delete
WP:COACOM:COA is quite clear that renditions of a coat of arms have copyright attached, and this rendition is AFAIK recent (1990s, I think). The cross and book are arguably below COM:TOO, but the lions are very different from all other renditions of the University arms that I've seen. Declaration of interest: I'm an officer of the University, albeit nowhere near the relevant part. --bjh21 (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC) - I've loaded this SVG into Inkscape alongside the official PDF version of the University identifier. The points on the various Bézier paths are in the same places on the two versions. This version and the official PDF must have come from the same vector source. --bjh21 (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: I've found a few different historical renditions of this coat of arms, and none of the old ones match this version. This is almost certainly recent and therefore copyrighted. It is indeed a close match to the fair use image on Wikipedia. --Guanaco (talk) 15:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Speedy delete: CSD U1 (blanked user page) 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 18:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: already deleted. --Ezarateesteban 23:56, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
No source means no way to verify government authorship. Powers (talk) 20:58, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- The image is used on this page on the Army Corps of Engineers site, but there isn't any copyright information provided. --bdesham ★ 03:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per bdesham. Ruthven (msg) 22:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
User:Sanandros declined both {{Dw no source since}} and {{Noncommercial}} for this shareware program.
Emacs aside, the window borders and the bottommost line are probably {{PD-ineligible}}. Typically conveying the source code is a requirement for GPL-licensed software, or else redistribution is impossible. Screenshots of software are derivative works and should follow guidelines at Commons:Screenshot. The uploader claimed GPLv2+ license on the screenshot but didn't provide the full source code.
The picture is made freely available to Wkimedia/Wikipedia by the author (of the displayed software snipet and of the screen copy).
is also not enough: that makes this file non-free. The file must also be made free for everyone, not just Wikipedia/Wikimedia.
Later User:Ploum's added a line "CC BY", but this is meaningless. If it refers to one of the Creative Commons licenses, there is no version stated. Theoretically, if it was one of the Creative Commons licenses, then compliance with e.g. CC BY 3.0's section 4(a) or CC BY 4.0's 3(a)(1)(A)(v) would be impossible without the appropriate template (such as {{Cc-by-3.0}} or {{Cc-by-4.0}}). Note to the author/uploader: Creative Commons licenses (excluding public domain dedications like CC0) are typically used for artistic works, not for software.
Because the source code for YGrep Search Engine is not available, it is distributed as shareware with dependencies on other shareware programs permitting only non-commercial distribution, the copyright holders of YGrep Search Engine should send permission via Commons:OTRS to verify. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 23:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
- Info: Uploader/author said "OK" to deletion at Special:Diff/258151546. 2001:2003:54FA:2751:0:0:0:1 02:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
- Ehm source code snippets are TOO and the first version was properly licensed.--Sanandros (talk) 05:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Kept: GNU-EMACS is released under GPL; so file is correctly licensed (as the author's code snippet). Ruthven (msg) 22:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
