Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/02/20
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
.jpg){kind=link}
.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}
![287 File:Míša" Krausová 2012.jpg](#File:Míša"_Krausová_2012.jpg){kind=link}
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 04:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedily deleted as user requests deletion of one of their own user pages. --AFBorchert (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Request remove please 83.220.239.33 07:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Vandalism file 188.32.109.175 11:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 03:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is offensive, not neutral politically and contradicts official positions of UN and of most countries in the world. In the Crimea Russian is official only under Russian law, same in unrecognized Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria under their "laws" backed by Russia. According to international position these regions are parts of Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova and according to laws of these countries Russian is not official there. Moreover for countries with unofficial Russian it is said in legend that "national or de facto", but how language can be unofficial and national at the same time? It implies that author of this map is not recognizes nations of these countries, map is offensive. Igor Balashov (talk) 12:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Keep – political rants against certain de facto polities. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is another color for de facto, see legend.--Igor Balashov (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. The map is about official languages, not international recognition. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- There is another color for de facto, see legend.--Igor Balashov (talk) 13:31, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Keep - Sorry, Igor, but I don't agree with you here. For those areas, Russian is official according to the govt. The fact that others may not like or recognize the govt is immaterial -- for the people who live there, it is the govt, and Russian is official. 'De facto' means not official, but used in the govt, like English in the USA. That's a different phenomenon. Kwamikagami (talk) 19:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- Confused even more. A correct statement could be: “official” means not de jure, but used in the govt…. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
- It is international project, not Russia-based and not Abkhazia-based, so you should call "official" what recognized as official internationally, at best third color should be used for these territories. Remark about "national" in legend is completely outrageous and inappropriate, even "de facto working language" is very dubious wording, because "working" is more likely something related to "work", business, etc, while there are just some speakers, very different amount, and nobody use it officially at any level, in Baltic countries, Georgia, Moldova and Western Ukraine now very significant part of population, especially among young people, simply didn't know it, and far more than 50% people in these regions are not using Russian even if know it.--Igor Balashov (talk) 20:17, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as duplicate. --JuTa 17:53, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
old Version, numbers are not correct anymore Kulturstiftung Kölner Dom (talk) 09:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Taivo at 10:23, 20 Februar 2018 UTC: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source: author's request --Krdbot 13:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Accidentally uploaded Rlucas17 (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Speedy kept – vandalism. --jdx Re: 06:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
The subject died in 1990. The photo is small, was uploaded as if it had been taken tomorrow, and came via Facebook with no other usable EXIF metadata. The uploader has a poor upload history. We need permission and a full-size image with EXIF via OTRS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Sysops, isn’t it another incarnation of the twice deleted File:محمدحسین صادقی نیلی.jpg? If it is, then not only
Delete but also block the uploader for disruption and waste of community resources. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is. Speedy. Ankry (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: reupload of previously deleted photo. --Ankry (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
This is for the 2018 Olympics, there is no way the author has been dead for decades. Kees08 (talk) 07:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per [[1]]. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Mistake by upload Loginator99 (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 20:10, 20 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: Source http://www.paulblau.com/?p=1082 --Krdbot 01:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete I doubt modern Malian stamps can be considered "official texts of a legislative, administrative or judicial nature, or their official translations" per the WIPO link in the attached license and as mentioned at Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Mali. Ww2censor (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Materialscientist (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Halohat isn't mentioned neither in en.wiki nor in hu.wiki. Unused logo of non-notable thing, out of project scope. Taivo (talk) 10:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#hu:Kateg%C3%B3ria:Sztojka_kevin3_zoknib%C3%A1bjai. --Yann (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Rábertálió.png
Small photos without metadata, the uploader's only contributions. Strange word "Google" bottom center of images. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 10:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Google Street View. --Yann (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
This is not logo of en:GameTV and Game TV is not mentioned in hu.wiki. The logo is out of project scope, hoax is possible. Taivo (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#hu:Kateg%C3%B3ria:Sztojka_kevin3_zoknib%C3%A1bjai. --Yann (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Advertising. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
unused terrible quality xilam logo with a bunch of compression artifact and File:Xilam - Logo.png is already a thing Nutshinou Talk! 10:47, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Minoraxtalk 05:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
TV channel RTL sport isn't mentioned neither in hu.wiki nor in en:RTL Group. Out of project scope, hoax is possible too. Taivo (talk) 10:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Blocks_and_protections#hu:Kateg%C3%B3ria:Sztojka_kevin3_zoknib%C3%A1bjai. --Yann (talk) 14:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photos, not used.
- File:M (16).jpg
- File:Muthoni George.jpg
- File:Odia.jpg
- File:ODINAKACHI CALEB UCHE .jpg
- File:Odininho.jpg
- File:Tr 2.jpg
- File:নবরত্ন মন্দির সিরাজগঞ্জ.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Kulmalukko (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --~Moheen (keep talking) 17:53, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://i.scdn.co/image/4517a6f4497abf0fae55f3236f2a8f44c3e2ae0f, any metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by ~riley at 06:17, 21 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation, see Commons:Licensing --Krdbot 13:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
page created by mistake, insteaad of category Darekk2 (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Should have been a category. --Achim (talk) 19:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, I want to delete my userpage because I want it to be consistent with my MetaWiki Userpage. Sorry to bother you but thanks for your help.
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation NottNott|talk 17:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 17:02, 22 Februar 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: external source, no license, no permission. --Krdbot 19:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 20:41, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Created by mistake (should have been Category:Ernst Frederik Düring-Rosenkrantz
Deleted: per nomination. --Achim (talk) 21:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Too blurry to be useful. See Category:Lake Wales, Florida. Out of scope. Kalbbes (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Commercial advertisement, SPAM: out of project scope. Ies (talk) 11:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination -- clear copyvio, therefore speedy applies. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:47, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: own userspace. --Achim (talk) 12:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Global5Tech12 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commercial advertisement, SPAM: out of project scope.
- File:Media Expo 2018 - Global5tech.png
- File:Match Peak Demand With Fast Response Times ,HP Latex 560 Printer.jpg
Ies (talk) 11:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: speedily: Blatant x-wiki spam. --Achim (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE Elisfkc (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Flickr washing (see Flickr caption for details) Elisfkc (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in the UAE Elisfkc (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FOP in the UAE Elisfkc (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE
- File:Dubai Airport Concourse A.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport Concourse B roevin Urban Capture.jpg
- File:Emirates dxb Trip 2009 249.jpg
- File:Emirates Trip 2009 243.jpg
- File:Ek Terminal 3 Trip 2009 241.jpg
- File:Emirates Trip 2009 204.jpg
- File:Emirates Trip 2009 201.jpg
- File:DXB Trip - May 2009 127.jpg
Elisfkc (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The video is licensed under YouTube's Creative Commons license, but this clip incorporates a nearly one-minute copyrighted movie trailer. The file is tagged with {{De minimis}}, but this is not a case of a copyrighted work which happens to be in this video, it is the main subject that is being discussed. ℯxplicit 01:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Contains a copyrighted trailer Mutter Erde (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Screenshot of File:Eri & Mari Yoshizawa duet at Yamaha Recital; 2010 (4326354048).webm, known issue with Flickr2Commons Elisfkc (talk) 02:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete, I guess there is no other choice to keep this image. :) ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ 02:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Marwan Tabuky (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely authorship claims based on the low resolutions, missing metadata, previous publications found elsewhere, and the uploader's history.
- File:Abdul Aziz Mechri.tif – the same photo has previously been deleted as part of Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by متعب رزق الله
- File:Abdul Rahman.E.Munif.tif
—LX (talk, contribs) 06:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
no file Sgsg (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
unlikely user's own works, low resolution and small size, possibly grabbed from Facebook as per FBMD meta data.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ninja✮Strikers «☎» 07:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SatyaSheel Public School Bhojpur Nagla Jawahari (talk · contribs)
[edit]Pictures of functions of a school. Not looks notable enough to be included in project scope.
- File:15th august 2015 10th class.jpg
- File:15th august 2015 jyoti.jpg
- File:Lekh Pratiyogita.jpg
- File:Homscience Practical 2015 10th class.jpg
- File:College SSPS.jpg
Hindust@niक्या करें? बातें! 08:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
no encyclopedic use case Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Delete And unclear --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Artist died in 2011. Carl Ha (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope. Ies (talk) 08:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
out of scope Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 09:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Florencia555 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal type photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 09:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Pankajcharbhare (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal type photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Personal type photos, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 09:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Looks like a screenshot from bing or google maps Migebert (talk) 09:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ameer Hamza Niazi (KWL) (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope.
- File:Ameer Hamza Niazi.jpg
- File:Usaid Hassan from lahore.jpg
- File:Usaid Hasssan lahore pakistan.jpg
- File:Usaid Hassan12.jpg
Ies (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
really own work? https://www.google.de/search?newwindow=1&dcr=0&q=dave+filoni&tbm=isch&tbs=simg:CAQSnQEJygiTRxHmyNAakQELEKjU2AQaCggXCD0IQggVCAAMCxCwjKcIGmIKYAgDEijxDrMZ9QHvDtcO1A73BOEO3w7tDs467TqoOu8k2i2qOq4uqTrvOtwtGjBYbGVvTsGAWlFVirtKGC6e9G2jJ_1LtfTgmFJkJK7DMUx7tui1APT9O6cusFCAxCa8gBAwLEI6u_1ggaCgoICAESBGKGhK8M&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnktXUmrTZAhVJUBQKHf43BscQ2A4IJigB&biw=1920&bih=966 Migebert (talk) 09:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
File:'Vive L'Empereur', oil on canvas painting by Édouard Detaille, 1891, Art Gallery of New South Wales.jpg
[edit]
Blurring. Three others pictures more qualified. Sammyday (talk) 09:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Celloistic (talk · contribs)
[edit]All claimed as own work but only work he has uploaded. At least one is from the net https://www.thestrad.com/cellist-jamal-aliyev-wins-musicians-company-princes-prize-competition/1399.article
- File:Jamal Aliyev25.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev23.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev22.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev21.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev15.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev16.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev17.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev14.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev12.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev13.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev11.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev10.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev9.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev7.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev8.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev6.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev4.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev3.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev5.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev2.jpg
- File:Jamal Aliyev1.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This file has many mistakes, it is of questionable notability, it is haphazardly uploaded and it has not been corrected at all. Not only is this file unused, but more importantly it is useless as reference. Artoxx (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- also file:Sterne Grafik.jpg
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 10:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Holokaust0 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Highly unlikely that this is own work
_con_Yihadista_John.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Gbawden (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Personal photo, out of scope Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:23, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Skategoldenboy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Raymondeugenio (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Because it´s me on the picture and I want it to be deleted! 84.136.133.164 10:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The photo is used in plwiki. I want it to be deleted is not a valid reason. Also as an actor, the subject can be considered to be a Person der Zeitgeschichte, when permission is not required. Image is from a public event. Ankry (talk) 11:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lucie-pozemnakova (talk · contribs)
[edit]Many files (including magazine covers) from many sources, credited by many authors and without a permission.
- File:Pera Delta Italy.jpg - author: Delta Italy
File:QUALITY AWARD - Ocenění za kvalitu TOP MODEL 2010.jpg - author: Lithness, spol. s r. o.permission in OTRS- File:Supermodelka Petra Němcová.jpg - author: Bauer Media v.o.s. (-> cs:Rytmus života magazine)
- File:Lucie Bílá a Leoš Mareš na párty v Buddha Baru.jpg - author: Michaela Feuereislová from en:Novinky.cz
- File:Plnicí pero Romeo & Julie.jpg - author RF Hobby, s r.o. (-> Guide magazine)
- File:Zuzana Belohorcová.jpg - author: ONE magazine
- File:The Best Woman, kabelka z butiku Arde Style Shop.jpg - author The Best Woman magazine
- File:Magazín The Best Woman.jpg - author The Best Woman magazine
- File:Magazín Guide.jpg - author RF Hobby, s r.o. (-> Guide magazine)
- File:Magazín Top Class.jpg - author Top Class magazine
- File:Magazín Guide s doplňky z butiku Arde Style Shop.jpg - author Guide magazine
+ File:Arde Style Shop.png - logo, I don't know whether it meets Commons:Threshold of originality (Template:PD-textlogo) permission in OTRS
--Harold (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Minus those with OTRS permission. ~riley (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Emergency Response Team
[edit]These are highly realistic 12 inch high toys called "One Sixth Warriors" and therefore are copyrighted as scupltures. There are examples at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Emergency response team RCMP 6975.jpg and a Google search for images with "One Sixth Warriors Sniper" will turn up the sniper. The Flickr user is well aware that these are not real.
- File:Emergency response team RCMP 7108-002.jpg
- File:RCMP Emergency Response Team with skull.jpg
- File:RCMP sniper in gilli.jpg
- File:RCMP sniper.jpg
- File:RCMP with gas mask.jpg
. Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: My local police department.. Delete per above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Downsel Music (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out-of-scope self-promotional content. Not in legitimate use and not realistically useful for educational purposes. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Downsel.
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Unused self-promotional content. Not realistically useful for educational purposes and therefore outside of Commons' project scope. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Downsel Music.
—LX (talk, contribs) 12:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photos, not used.
- File:Parvez Ahmed Sumalani.jpg
- File:Pawan sharma.png
- File:PJfv5GLIEOk.jpg
- File:Sanjeewa.jpg
- File:ZOEHAN.JPG
Kulmalukko (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FOP in Ukraine. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by JeraldPlathottam (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photos, out of scope
Gbawden (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
not own work, low resolution, no exif, Triplecaña (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
not own work, no exif Triplecaña (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously copyrighted image from a video game, and the license does not apply. Parsecboy (talk) 12:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:21, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of COM:PS, blurred. Leyo 12:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gromit unleashed
[edit]Derived works of presumably copyrighted sculptures. Freedom of panorama in the UK doesn't apply to temporary exhibitions.
- File:2013 at Bristol Temple Meads - Isambark Kingdog Brunel.jpg
- File:2013 at Bristol Temple Meads - May contain nuts & bolts (220017).jpg
- File:2013 at Paddington station - Gromit (FGW 180104).jpg
- File:2013 at Paddington station - Gromit.jpg
- File:Gromit on Brigantia.JPG
- File:Paddington station MMB 98 Gromit Unleashed.jpg
- File:Paddington station MMB 99 Gromit Unleashed.jpg
File:W and g costumes.jpeg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
ghouston (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Please note the category contains a lot of subcategories, the contents of which are not listed but are also on trial here. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
- Comment File:W and g costumes.jpeg are not sculptures. They are two costumed people. see also File:Wallace and Gromit costumes.jpeg, and so should be kept.Martin451 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Further to Mattbuck;s comment, here are the subcat files:
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 6.jpg
- File:A Close Shave (Gromit unleashed) 7.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 6.jpg
- File:Bushed (Gromit unleashed) 7.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:Butterfly (Gromit unleashed) 6.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog1.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog2.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog3.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog4.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog5.jpg
- File:Gromit Steam Dog6.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Collarful 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Collarful 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Collarful 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Dog Rose 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Dog Rose 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Golden Gromit 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Golden Gromit 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Golden Gromit 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Gromitasaurus 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Gromitasaurus 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Gromitasaurus 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Gromitasaurus 4.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed hero1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed hero3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Malago 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Malago 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 4.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 5.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 7.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Newshound 9.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 4.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 5.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Roger 6.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Salty Sea Dog 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed The King 1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed The King 2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed The King 3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed The King 4.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Zodiac1.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Zodiac2.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Zodiac3.jpg
- File:Gromit unleashed Zodiac4.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 6.jpg
- File:Groscar (Gromit unleashed) 7.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 1.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 2.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 3.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 4.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 5.jpg
- File:Nezahualcoyotl (Gromit unleashed) 6.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 1.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 2.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 4.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 5.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 6.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit 7.jpg
- File:Tutan Gromit.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 1.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 2.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 3.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 4.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 5.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 6.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 7.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 8.jpg
- File:Vincent van Gromit 9.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? 1.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? 2.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? 3.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? 4.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? 5.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? closeup 1.jpg
- File:Where's Wallace? closeup 2.jpg
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_3.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_4.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_5.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_6.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
. Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: . . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 22:41, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Files in Category:Gromit unleashed
[edit]Pictures are derivative works of the various painted Gromit statues, and hence copyright violations. en:Gromit Unleashed says that the statues were displayed “between 1 July and 8 September 2013”, so they were not permanent and hence Freedom of Panorama doesn't apply. The statues are the primary subjects of the photos, and definitely not de minimis.
- File:A Mandrill's Best Friend, Gromit No. 51.jpg
- File:AMazing Gromit.jpg
- File:Bark at Ee Gromit, Gromit No.16.jpg
- File:Bristol Bulldog, Gromit No. 77.jpg
- File:Fiesta, Gromit No. 54.jpg
- File:Fish Tales, Gromit No. 12.jpg
- File:Grant’s Gromit, Ashton Court.jpg
- File:Gromberry, Gromit No.46.jpg
- File:Gromit-o-Matic, Gromit No.52.jpg
- File:Isambark Kingdog Brunel, Gromit No.38.jpg
- File:May Contain Nuts (and Bolts).jpg
- File:Patch, Gromit No.47.jpg
- File:Sheepdog, Gromit No. 48.jpg
- File:Sir Gromit of Bristol, Gromit No.6.jpg
- File:Sugar Plum, Gromit No. 50.jpg
- File:Union Jack Gromit (9242358742).jpg
- File:Watch out Gromit!,.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
bjh21 (talk) 13:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I will contact Wallace and Gromit's Grand Appeal directly and query this; please do not delete the photos until I receive an official reply outlining their views on this matter. Mojo0306 (talk) 16:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Email sent to Gromit Unleashed and Aardman's offices, awaiting reply. Mojo0306 (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: We can undelete these later if needed, they cannot be on Commons in the mean time. Sorry. ~riley (talk) 01:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
@~riley: Gromit Unleashed are happy for some images to be used on Wikipedia, but didn't mention a Creative Commons licence. Where do I go from here? Mojo0306 (talk) 13:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:2017–18 Iranian protests
[edit]Tasnim's work? Probably not. I believe these are just screenshots of websites which track trending hashtags of Twitter such as [2]
- File:Distribution Map of Tweets Related to Iran's Demonstration 01.jpg
- File:Distribution Map of Tweets Related to Iran's Demonstration.jpg
4nn1l2 (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. The mentioned source literally says they come from TrendsMap, beside lacking the Tasnim watermark. In other words, it is not Tasnim's own work, which makes it ineligible for Tasnim's CC-BY-4.0 statement. --HyperGaruda (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Per nomination. MasoodHA (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Without regarding whether it is a Tasnim photo or not (which I believe it is NOT), outputs of such a these programs are not violate Wiki permission rules. It is not a piece of art or something that meets copyright violation criteria.--Freshman404Talk 15:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
- Maps are protected according to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Maps & satellite imagery. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
3rd party files published by VOA
[edit]Per the a former nomination. The files are not exclusively produced by VOA, so can't be in PD.
- File:OIAC US Takes Part in a Rally Supporting Iranian Protesters in front of White House - 6 January 2018 (01).jpg
- File:OIAC US Takes Part in a Rally Supporting Iranian Protesters in front of White House - 6 January 2018 (03).jpg
- File:OIAC US Takes Part in a Rally Supporting Iranian Protesters in front of White House - 6 January 2018 (04).jpg
- File:OIAC US Takes Part in a Rally Supporting Iranian Protesters in front of White House - 6 January 2018 (05).jpg
- File:OIAC US Takes Part in a Rally Supporting Iranian Protesters in front of White House - 6 January 2018 (06).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Mhhossein talk 14:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: Voa cannot take pictures in Washington D.C? so u tell me, where located this agency, what kind of pictures of VOA is freely licensed? by this nomination, i became completely sure that you user:Mhhossein have problem with the protests at all, it's not about the copyright of pictures. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, the files will survive, if they're really exclusively created by VOA. However, the records have shown otherwise. As for the accusations, please refrain from repeating them. The attempt is aimed at removing the illegal works. --Mhhossein talk 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: i asked you two questions, where located VOA (HQ and it's photographers) and "what kind of pictures of VOA is freely licensed?" (what is use of Template:voa when in ur view, no any kind of pictures can be uploaded from its website, according to ur last nominations seems you are at a problem with VOA). I think you deleted enough "illegal works" about the Iranian protests. You are sure that VOA is not copyright holder of these OIAC pics?--Rafic.Mufid (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid, the files will survive, if they're really exclusively created by VOA. However, the records have shown otherwise. As for the accusations, please refrain from repeating them. The attempt is aimed at removing the illegal works. --Mhhossein talk 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Mhhossein: Voa cannot take pictures in Washington D.C? so u tell me, where located this agency, what kind of pictures of VOA is freely licensed? by this nomination, i became completely sure that you user:Mhhossein have problem with the protests at all, it's not about the copyright of pictures. --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Previous DR precedence. ~riley (talk) 01:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
File inappropriate — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eagle up (talk • contribs) 2017-12-31T15:33:15 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- in use. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in Italy for artworks (sculptor: w:it:Paolo Schiavocampo) Parma1983 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:SCOPE: private image; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:SCOPE: private image; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per COM:SCOPE: private image; unlikely to be used in a project Takeaway (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Stamps of Slovakia
[edit] Delete these 2015 stamp were not authored by the uploader as claimed, so cannot release then freely. The authors are listed here and here under the author tabs. It appears that Slovakian stamps are copyright for 70 years pma per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovakia. Besides which since 2004 Slovenská pošta is an independent company, though owned by the state, so they could not be considered government works. PCP applies.
Ww2censor (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Stamps of Slovakia
[edit] Delete these 2016 stamp were not authored by the uploader as claimed, so cannot release then freely. The authors are listed here and here under the author tabs. It appears that Slovakian stamps are copyright for 70 years pma per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovakia. Besides which since 2004 Slovenská pošta is an independent company, though owned by the state, so they could not be considered government works. PCP applies.
Ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque yo lo he publicado Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Discasto as no source (No source since)... but the image has metadata and is large. Nominating for deletion, instead of "no source" in an effort to achieve clarity. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- speedy keep It was fixed. Anyone allowed to check full file history (deleted versions included, I guess only sysops) woud see there was a problematic intermediate version (an old photo, with an unlikely authorship ("OWN")). It was reverted to the current one. I don't know why the template of "no source" wasn't removed after that. Strakhov (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion -- great photo. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque lo he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque lo he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:19, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
porque la he subido yo Victorcamblorprieto (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Victorcamblorprieto: Hola, Victorcamblorprieto, ¿puedes ser un poco más concreto? La razón "porque la he subido yo" no es muy informativa. Si te refieres a "porque la he subido yo y ya no deseo que figure más en Commons porque no quiero" he de comentarte que la licencia Creative Commons Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International con la que decidiste publicar en 2016 la imagen ...es irrevocable (El licenciador no puede revocar estas libertades mientras cumpla con los términos de la licencia). strakhov (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
probably copyvio, official picture of the band or label, no signs of CC license --Michal Lenc (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:JPG files with errors
[edit]Erroneous images, out of project scope!
- File:20141028 A Night Trip at Hong Kong Umbrella Revolution -UmbrellaMovement -UmbrellaRevolution -OccupyHK (15473683437).jpg
- File:Aretty ramnaresh.jpg
- File:Ciel et sable au plein erg Occidental.JPG
- File:Jukebox-The-Ghost.jpg
- File:Muebleros de Jesús María.jpg
- File:Máscaras de madera.jpg
- File:Plaza principal, Jesús María.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ras67 (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subhadeep Mandal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope.
- File:Rose day 2013.jpg
- File:At ECO PARK 2.jpg
- File:At Eco park.jpg
- File:Puja spacial 3.jpg
- File:Traveling at Belurmath.jpg
- File:At belurmath.jpg
- File:Puja spacial.jpg
- File:AT BBC 4.jpg
- File:To in home.jpg
- File:At BBC3.jpg
- File:At BBC 2.jpg
- File:At BBC.jpg
- File:Its me6.jpg
- File:Its me4.jpg
- File:Its me1.jpg
- File:Its me3.jpg
- File:Its me 1.jpg
Ies (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Subhadeep Mandal (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope. Unused personal images.
Érico (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 04:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete: the 70 year license and text statement cover the bottom half of this miniature sheet however the two top stamps are from 1988 and the designer and engraver hold copyright on that. According to this webpage Rudolf Klimovič only died in 1990, so his work is copyright until 2061. The engraver is Václav Fajt and according to this webpage he was born in 1952 and appears to still be alive. Ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation Hugopako (talk) 15:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by MURALI 11031995 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope.
Ies (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Too underexposed to be educationally usable. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rickard Wijk (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical photos and documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected. Also text cropped out of image and moved to description.
- File:Foto från FSV-Frankfurt hemsida.jpeg
- File:Karl Wijk i f Tyskland Sommaren 1928 ( bakom ratten).jpg
- File:Karl Wijk September 1928 i FVR Frankfurt.jpg
- File:Karl Wijk Fotbollsspelare bild 2.jpg
- File:Karl Wijk Medlemskort i MFF hedersmedlem hela sitt liv.jpg
- File:Karl Wijk Fotbollsspelare.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small/inconsistent resolutions, missing EXIF, per COM:PRP, considering User talk:Malkawi99 (file cropper, exif manipulator, Panoramio etc. grabber). Living examples: File:بركة العرائس 1.jpg (11.06.2016, photoshopped & cropped) --> https://www.facebook.com/363561470403282/photos/a.363564557069640.91002.363561470403282/1028293743930048/?type=3&theater (04.2016, © by "Ahmad Thyabat Photography") + File:بركة العرائس 4.jpg (11.06.2016) --> (watermark removed) https://www.facebook.com/363561470403282/photos/a.363564557069640.91002.363561470403282/990474241045332/?type=3&theater (02.2016, © by "Ahmad Thyabat Photography"). See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:بركة العرايس في إربد.jpg
- File:بركة العرائس بجانب نهر اليرموك.jpg
- File:بركة العرائس 10.jpg
- File:بركة العرائس 4.jpg
- File:بركة العرائس 1.jpg
- File:بركة العرائس 3.jpg
Gunnex (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 00:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Too big collection for user page.
- File:عارف محمد العلي الملكاوي.jpg
- File:عارف محمد ملكاوي.jpg
- File:Al.Malkawi Aref.jpg
- File:Aref Mohammad Malkawi - University Of Jordan.jpg
- File:UMS المدرسة النموذجية — الجامعة الأردنية.jpg
- File:Al-Malkawi Aref.jpg
- File:عارف محمد الملكاوي.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 12:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:وصفي التل مع أحمد أبو قورة عام 1931.jpg
- File:وصفي التل عام 1946.jpg
- File:الملك حسين ودوله الشهيد وصفي التل.jpg
- File:صورة لوصفي التل عام 1945.png
- File:وصفي التل في يوليو 1971.jpg
- File:وصفي التل قبل اغتياله بلحظات.jpg
- File:وصفي التل في جامعة الدول العربية.jpg
- File:جنازة شهيد الأمة وصفي التل.jpg
- File:وصفي التل.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photos, not used.
- File:20161030 153209DSD.jpg
- File:Actor Sachin Shivalia.jpg
- File:Alecstomson.jpg
- File:Dty1.jpg
- File:Dty3.jpg
- File:Dty4.jpg
- File:Ever Cordero Múnera.jpg
- File:Subodh Kumar.jpg
- File:Sukdev Bandyopadhyay.jpg
- File:Vishnu gopal g nair 2016.jpg
- File:Vishnu gopal g nair.jpg
- File:Vita552323.jpg
Kulmalukko (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sunilastin (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images, like http://www.newscrunch.in/2015/11/actress-nagma-shares-photos-of-rare.html.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manuel Lequarré (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical maps, photo and painting. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:27 - quartier léopold Rue Belliard 137-137A, ancien Institut de Sociologie.png
- File:26 - quartier léopold Illustration de la Cité scientifique du Parc Léopold au XX ème siècle.png
- File:16 - quartier léopold Plan de l’Institut cartographique militaire - 1881.png
- File:15 - quartier léopold Nouveaux axes urbains - 1875.png
- File:13 - quartier léopold Carte de Vandermaelen - 1846 1850.png
- File:12 - quartier léopold Plan de Ch. Vandermaelen - 1858.png
- File:11 - quartier léopold Plan de C. Vanderstraeten Source.png
- File:9 - quartier léopold Carte de Vandermaelen - 1846 1850.png
- File:7 - quartier léopold Carte de 1816 dressé par D. B. et gravé par Ph. J. Maillant.png
- File:6 - quartier léopold Plan de 1810, Cabuy Y.png
- File:4 - quartier léopold Plan de J.Ferraris - 1777.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
out of focus, not in project scope Mindmatrix 15:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Fernando Croce Oficial (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Fernando-croce-piloto2.jpg
- File:Fernando-croce-piloto.jpg
- File:Croce em Super. Trofeo EUA 2015-3.jpg
- File:Croce em Super. Trofeo EUA 2015-2.jpg
- File:Fernando Croce.png
- File:Acidente – Campeonato Brasileiro 2017.jpg
- File:Carro de Fernando Croce pega fogo no Campeonato Brasileiro de Turismo.jpg
- File:Abertura do Italiano de GT tem vitória brasileira.jpg
- File:Nicolas Costa e Fernando Croce comemoram VITÓRIA na abertura do Italiano de GT em Monza.jpg
- File:Croce circuito de Sebring, na Flórida.jpg
- File:O Piloto paulista conquistou um bom resultado em sua estreia.jpg
- File:Depois de uma semana de disputa no Brasileiro de Kart.jpg
- File:CROCE em entrevista GT SPRINT VALLELUNGA.jpg
- File:CROCE pilotando FERRARI 458.jpg
- File:GT Brasil, Corvette Z06 R.jpg
- File:Fernando-carro-pista.jpg
- File:Fernando Croce (capacete vermelho) e o Pai (capacete branco).jpg
- File:Croce - 15ª edição do SKB – Super Kart Brasil, no Kartódromo de Aldeia da Serra-SP.jpg
- File:Super Kart Brasil2.jpg
- File:Super Kart Brasil1.jpg
- File:CAMPEÃO COPA BRASIL DE KART SENIOR A - 2014.jpg
- File:Croce em Super. Trofeo EUA 2015.jpg
- File:Inicio-fernando-croce-carro.jpg
- File:Fernando Croce e o pai.jpg
_e_o_Pai_(capacete_branco).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved as wiki-text to relevant project if useful.
- File:Mini Pro Materiaux composites.pdf
- File:Programme Materiaux composites.pdf
- File:Materiau composite.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mohamed mustafa11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability.
- File:1السيرة الذاتية ابراهيم عبدالله الصغير.pdf
- File:السيرة الذاتية ابراهيم عبدالله الصغير.pdf
- File:2السيرة الذاتية ابراهيم عبدالله الصغير.pdf
- File:السيرة ابراهيم عبدالله الصغير3.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Tonin didier (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical postcards. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Laudero Maestro (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely to be own work: small resolutions, missing EXIF, could be found on other web sites with Google Images.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Images appear to be from http://www.clubatleticotucuman.com.ar/jugadores
- File:Leandro diaz -.jpg
- File:Batalla 2017.jpg
- File:Ismael Blanco 2017.jpg
- File:Pulga Rodríguez 2017.jpg
- File:Rafa Garcia.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
useless, not used in Wikipedia Derbrauni (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep kein Löschgrund --Ralf Roleček 18:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, no reason for deletion. --Insider (talk) 06:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 01:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files in Category:Bhagavad-gita Museum
[edit]The copyright owner informed me they do not wish to release these four unused files.
- File:Bhagavad-gita Museum - Choices on the Path of Life.jpg
- File:Bhagavad-gita Museum - Goloka—The Spiritual Realm.jpg
- File:Bhagavad-gita Museum - Lord Chaitanya’s Sankirtan Festival.jpg
- File:Bhagavad-gita Museum - Setting the Stage.jpg
Muhandes (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photos, not used.
- File:Alberto.PNG
- File:EllieBeckmanGraduation.jpg
- File:Gloria Ill.jpg
- File:Katojun.jpg
- File:Ost0lbenei.jpg
- File:Pipu.jpg
- File:Stian oz foto.JPG
- File:Temoor - Copy.jpg
- File:ابوزيد محمد علي.jpg
- File:الشال.jpg
- File:ฟรัง.jpg
- File:สกาย.jpg
Kulmalukko (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Backgammon83 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Photos of a game - deriviative works.
- File:Differenza6.jpg
- File:Differenza5.jpg
- File:Differenza4.jpg
- File:BearOffvs22.jpg
- File:BearInvs22.jpg
- File:BadTiming.jpg
- File:GoodTiming.jpg
- File:Fig3HoldingGame.jpg
- File:Fig2HoldingGame.jpg
- File:Fig1HoldingGame.jpg
- File:Bearoffcaanalysis.jpg
- File:Bearoffca.jpg
- File:Pureraceanalysis.jpg
- File:Purerace.jpg
- File:MhgBG.jpg
- File:HgBG.jpg
- File:Pips.jpg
- File:AncoraBg.jpg
- File:AvanzaBG.jpg
- File:BlitzBg.jpg
- File:6-prime.jpg
~Cybularny Speak? 21:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello Cybularny, those are not photos but pictures: I built them up using my own XG copy, so they are not taken from any played backgammon game, and they are vital to explain backgammon concepts. Backgammon83 (talk) 02:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: eXtreme Gammon permission required nonetheless. ~riley (talk) 01:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bostonsphotos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Exist elsewhere on the web.
~Cybularny Speak? 21:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The uploader claims to have taken this image and to be O'Hara's personal archivist [3] but the EXIF metadata says the image was taken by Matt Petit and is owned by AMPAS. DrKay (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Shield of a soccer club, there is no evidence that the uploader have any connection with the club, nor that the image is under the license presented. Leon saudanha (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The logo does not consist only of letters and geometric shapes, so it does not fit the threshold of originality Leon saudanha (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- And also:
- DMacks (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation. The official site from the company owning the logo states in its footer that all rights are reserved. Leon saudanha (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© ZWROT. Copy of http://zwrot.cz/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Aniela-Kupiec.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
False date, missing permission : any evidence that Leksykon Polaków w Republice Czeskiej i Republice Słowackiej is free of use. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
False date, missing permission : any evidence that Leksykon Polaków w Republice Czeskiej i Republice Słowackiej is free of use. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
False date, missing permission : any evidence that Leksykon Polaków w Republice Czeskiej i Republice Słowackiej is free of use. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
False date, missing permission : any evidence that Leksykon Polaków w Republice Czeskiej i Republice Słowackiej is free of use. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Andreas Lander. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Karin Freund. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Andreas Lander. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Niz Boehme. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Andreas Lander. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© ABart, MD. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
© Katrin Freund. Permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Talk page archives, not deleting. ~riley (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
personal subpage delete 최광모 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Talk page archives, not deleting. ~riley (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://media.licdn.com/media/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAgDAAAAJGEzODRmZWMzLTk1YjMtNDZhMi04Yzk5LWMwZDdiNjZiYjJhNg.jpg, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
COPYVIO. This is Reinhold Messner's famous picture from his solo ascent on Nanga Parbat in 1978 Rupert Pupkin (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Uploader has two other pictures of uncertain origin:
--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 08:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is totally biased, based on a clearly POV 19-th century pro-Greek map made by George Soteriadis Professor of History at the University of Athens, a 19-th century Greek historian.... I can make some thousands of images like this to show the Albanianess of Egypt... --Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think this merits a delete, for several reasons. We already have far more biased and outright ridiculous ethnographic maps, and this one appears (to me at least) to be reasonably accurate in depicting the areas where minorities have traditionally (this is the important part) lived in Albania. The map is not a rip-off of Soteriadis, there are several listed sources. If it is inaccurate, then the best thing is to provide a source that explains how and where it is inaccurate, and then correct it. Deletion only comes across as a denial (i.e. "there are no minorities in Albania"). Constantine ✍ 13:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose delete, as a clear case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of a rabid Albanian nationalist. This is nothing more than yet another tiresome attempt to deny the existence of ethnic minorities in Albania. The map is based on numerous reliable sources, and is very accurate. Athens2004 (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep The description label and the discussion page are made up to write even an essay on how it is right or how it is wrong the map showed. Deletion, in this case and in my personal opinion, it's just censorship.--Giorgiomonteforti (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Keep, as per GiorgiomontefortiMegistias (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
""Delete"" As per Balkanian's word arguments.--I Pakapshem (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
- Delete propaganda map based on the map created by a Greek nationalist during WWI. Third source is totally irrelevant and doesn't even mention locations.--Kushtrim123 (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep: As per Cplakidas, deletion is an extreme approach. The traditional precense of ethnologiustic minorities (especially the Greek) is also cited in several books and journals: [[4]] p. 1617, and [[5]] (Monte Diplomatique). It's really sad to see blocked and spa-revert warriors from english wikipedia to be active here too.Alexikoua (talk) 10:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
- Keep Commons has all sorts of propaganda and other material that many of us disagree with. This map could easily be used to illustrate the use of maps in propaganda. We even have a tag for exactly this purpose, {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}}, which should be added to it by someone more knowledgeable than me. . . . . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
- Comment, Jameslwoodward, it has already been discussed in En:Wiki it is not propaganda.Megistias (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
Done. Tagged. Also entered a comment on the talk page. We should behave with maps and images as with articles. Please bring it to the talk page BW.Sulmues (talk) 13:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Kept. Image is in use, in scope and educational. The deletion reason by the nominator really isn't a reason to delete the image. Bidgee (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
A much more accurate map is already in wikipedia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AlbaniaTraditionalCommunitiesByLanguageAndReligion.png therefore "Albania_minorities.png" is unnecessary. AceDouble (talk) 23:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: In use on 24 projects, thus not eligible for deletion. --Achim (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep: I doubt if the so-called alternative map above is more accurate, in fact its undergoing large-scale correction.Alexikoua (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
There you go: http://www.instat.gov.al/media/3214/1113.xls greeks make up 0.87% of the population. AceDouble (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- You can't vote on a deletion request that you've nominated! (note, AceDouble removed the vote delete but also my comment) Bidgee (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Been over this before and nothing has changed with the argument for the deletion. Everyone's view points will be different, Commons doesn't take sides and this file is also in-use and even if it wasn't, it would still exist in a category and be in-scope. Bidgee (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Bidgee you've got a problem with that? This map doesn't even comply with the present time so it belongs to the past, that's one more reason to be deleted. AceDouble (talk) 21:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. ~riley (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in the UAE
- File:Dubai Inrernational Airport Concourse C mezzanine floor gates.jpg
- File:Sheikh Rashid Terminal (5270754228).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Elisfkc (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: , can I ask a question here? Is FOP applicable if a foreigner clicks a picture and uploads to a server which is outside the country where the FOP is applicable? For instance, I am not a UAE citizen, and this was uploaded to Wikimedia server (which is outside UAE). Will FOP still be applicable here? Additionally, I found a bunch of other pictures on Commons some of which are also my uploads. Will they be affected as well? --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 02:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Psubhashish: The issue is that it means that you do not own the copyright to picture now, because the images contain buildings in the UAE, where pictures of buildings are owned by their architect. --Elisfkc (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Elisfkc: , it starts making sense now. Thanks for clarifying. --Subhashish Panigrahi (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jeremiahaberneezerthegreat (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope: unused personal photos and unlikely to be used in a project.
- File:Topboss Plastic incorporated 201834349.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic incorporated 20183434228.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic incorporated 201834346.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic incorporated 20183434.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated 280218 124001554.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated 280218 12400118 134549.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated Outing 2181834333437454718 102941.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated Outing 2181834333437454718 1029410218 102944945.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated Outing 2181834333437454718 1029410218 102944.jpg
- File:Topboss Plastic Incorporated Outing 2181834333437.jpg
Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: Unused Selfie. Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, and no permission from Charlotte Whaley. Yann (talk) 04:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- The file is used now, so it is in scope. There is only the permission issue left. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm confused. Who is Charlotte Whaley, and why is she relevant here?- Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)- I see. Claim of "own work" in one place is contradicted lower on the same page. @Alessandra Comini: I take it that this is not a self-portrait and is by Charlotte Whaley, so "own work" isn't accurate, should say it's Charlotte Whaley's work. The copyright of a photo is normally owned by the photographer (not the subject), unless it's been explicitly signed over in writing. So, assuming Charlotte Whaley owns the copyright, we need her to go through the process outlined at COM:OTRS. If you own the copyright, we still need to have you go through that, because signing over copyrights is an unusual situation for private individuals, and the OTRS people would presumably need to see evidence that had occurred (e.g. copy of the document that signs over rights). - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete until and unless we have OTRS permission from photographer Charlotte Whaley. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:32, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. I bought a tub of the yoghurt, took it outside and photographed it against the hedge to get a nice bokeh. I see that the WP Five:am article has been deleted - although the brand continues on from strength to strength here - so I guess there's not much need for an orphan photo. --Skyring (talk) 02:15, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the product packaging here falls under "a printed design which is so insignificant as to be incidental". Simple font, and generic photo of cookies mixed with grain. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think Jonatan is right. That "generic photo" is exactly the problem. The grass is not copyrighted, the shape of the cup isn't, the text is not creative enough to attract copyright and at least the US doesn't care about fonts. But the biscuits won't be free. No such thing as a free lunch..
- If you really wanted, you could dig up some free pictures of biscuits and grain here and replace the images on the lid. Too much work for me. @Piotrus: , if you really really want I can probably make the cookies go away. - Alexis Jazz 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Do you think the biscuitmshape is copyrighted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: Nope, but the (stock) photo of the arranged biscuits most probably is. - Alexis Jazz 08:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Do you think the biscuitmshape is copyrighted? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:05, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. A photograph of a planar package foil with this printing would be a clear-cut copyvio. But here we see:
- the foil is not smooth on the millimetre scale and the photo image is, hence, distorted;
- illumination is irregular.
- Technically a derivative work, yes, but not “realistically useful” to subvert rights of the trademark holder, especially given that such packages are presumably widely available in retail. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:17, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not being realistically useful to subvert rights of the
trademarkcopyright holder is a good argument for fair use. It is possible to remove the biscuits from the packaging, but the resulting image is not very appealing. Which for me means the biscuit stock photo is decorative. Removing them in a smooth way is quite some work due to the irregularities of this type of packaging. To keep this, you would have to say the biscuits are DM. As they are essential to the image I don't believe they are. But as Piotr has also complained on my talk page, I've just removed the biscuits from the lid in a not-that-smooth way. If the image is still considered to be valueable this way, fine with me. - Alexis Jazz 10:06, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not being realistically useful to subvert rights of the
Deleted: Biscuits. Kept: Final rendition. ~riley (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- What type of evidence do you need ? I've seen dozens of images like this. --Narek75 (talk) 12:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- And yet none of them seemed to have any copyright violation problems. What seems to be the problem here? I literally can't think of a way to 'pursue' you people that this work is MINE, MINE, and MINE ALONE ! --Narek75 (talk) 10:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- Are you the photographers/creator of the strawberry images on the packaging? See policy and guideline links in my original comments. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Yoghurt packaging
[edit]No evidence that the photographer is the copyright owner of the image(s) on the package(s).
(Derivative work of copyrighted image/artwork.)
If the images on the package is PD for any reason (like age or shape), that should be specified by using e.g. {{Licensed-PD}}.
- File:Yogurt, alipende, Madrid, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Yogurt, tarrina, alipende, Madrid, España, 2015.JPG
- File:Йогурт Снежок (июль 2017).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
--Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Keep File:Yogurt, alipende, Madrid, España, 2015.JPG — there is no copyright work, the logo «alipende» is trivial, the sppon is not copyrighted too.
What about this file — File:Йогурт Снежок (июль 2017).jpg...@Jonatan Svensson Glad, what is copyright on this picture? The cat (which is «made» from geometrical figures)? The word "СНЕЖОК"? Or the fruits in the bottom? --Brateevsky {talk} 17:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The image of the spoon holding yoghurt in File:Yogurt, alipende, Madrid, España, 2015.JPG is most definitely copyrightable (and copyrighted). All images in File:Йогурт Снежок (июль 2017).jpg (the cat, fruits, the bow; and the composition of them all together) are copyrighted. Please read the links COM:DW and COM:PACKAGING to familiarize yourself with what a derivative work is, and how we treat derivatives of packages with images on them which are copyrightable. Since they are included on the packaging, and framed to be visible for the photos they are not COM:de minimis, which a photo where a large image of a breakfast table with this packaging included might be kept. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
COM:DW of copyrighted logo/sign. Not de minimis since it is included intentionally and is one of the main focuses --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 05:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Not own work, taken from the net including https://www.techradar.com/reviews/phones/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-i7500-637405/review Gbawden (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Person portrayed asked to be deleted and has already provided another, much better picture which is now uploaded. Fadesga (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete: obviously this 1994 stamp cannot have been published in the US before 1923, so without a proper license PCP should apply, unless a correct license is added. Ww2censor (talk) 12:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
A bit blurred. (And is this poster really with CC license?) Kulmalukko (talk) 12:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
the owner of this picture require this picture to be deleted.it violates his privacy Chengeng Lu (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Courtesy deletion of unused file. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
It is very probably a derivative work. No permission. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:37, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete: it is highly unlikely the uploader is the designer of the 2014 and 2009 stamps and it appears that Slovakian stamps are copyright for 70 years pma per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovakia. Besides which since 2004 Slovenská pošta is an independent company, though owned by the state, so they could not be considered government works. Ww2censor (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Cover, poster or logo - anyway unlikely to be own work. ~Cybularny Speak? 14:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- File not in use. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private image, not realistically useful for an educational purpose: out of project scope. Ies (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation - small size - no EXIF - own work claim doubtful - not clear image. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope - unused personal file; self promotion; no educational value. — Tulsi Bhagat (talk) 14:46, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete: this image was cropped from a 1993 postage stamp per this stamp catalogue webpage and was not authored by the uploader as stated (see the author tab). It appears Slovakian stamps are copyright to the author for 70 years pma per Commons:Copyright rules by territory#Slovakia. However before 2004 Slovenská pošta was a government department, so they might be considered government works. Clarification is needed. Ww2censor (talk) 14:48, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation Hugopako (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be a picture of an old photo taken with an iPhone. Not sure who the original photographer is, nor the orignal date. Not sure if free Titlutin (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Too underexposed. Kulmalukko (talk) 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Historical newspapers. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Issue of 20May1948 - Israel Founded.pdf
- File:Issue of 19Mar1953 - Bundestag Ratifies Israel Pact.pdf
- File:Issue of 31Jan1933 - Hitler Named Chancellor.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
These are classic front pages of The Jewish Advocate that give a sense of the paper's history. I am the administrator at The Jewish Advocate and have granted free-use permission of these images. Thank you.
We also sent the required email to WikiMedia Commons 'permissions-commons@wikimedia.org' as requested granting permission. I'm not quite familiar with this process and am technologically-challenged, so could someone please confirm that we're all set with these and the front pages on The Jewish Advocate. Thank you very much. --SharonH (talk) 19:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above, can be undeleted if OTRS approves. ~riley (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- The deletion nomination indicated the need for the following information:
- "Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied"
- The answers are the following:
- Author - The Jewish Advocate (already present)
- Date - already identified on each file
- Country of creation - USA
- Given that the Jewish Advocate is a US publication I don't see the need to at it explicitly to the file but if the some reason to do so it should be easy enough to do.
- I undeleted the images after receipt of a permission statement from an authorized representative of the publication.--Sphilbrick (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
does not appear to have been created by NOAA given copyright watermark Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Copyrighted image. http://www.elmundo.com/noticia/Comite-promotor-de-candidatura-de-German-Vargas-Lleras-fue-inscrito/358329 https://laorejaroja.com/la-calana-de-german-vargas-lleras-ian-schnaida/Felviper (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Probably the character Sonic the Hedgehog is copyrighted. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Private photo, not used. Kulmalukko (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Photo by Keven Menard. permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:44, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: as above. ~riley (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Audio is "Spitfire (Kill the Noise Remix)" by Porter Robinson, which is copyrighted. The video can be re-uploaded without sound, but the current version must be deleted. ℯxplicit 02:30, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a derivative work. The original map appears to be from http://www.landkartenindex.de/weltatlas/?cat=512. The notice on the bottom indicates this map is protected by copyright. SpanishSnake (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was mistaken. The source is cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/graphics/ref maps/physical/pdf/world.pdf. I would like to withdraw this deletion request. SpanishSnake (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - While the base map is PD-US Gov, the annotations are copyrighted and there is no free license at the source. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Kurds protest Turkey's Afrin operation outside Russian embassy in Beirut - Jan 23, 2018 .webm
[edit]Unclear what authority this YouTube channel has over the videos it uploads. They come from various sources, and the About page reads:
Middle East channel
if you have problem with some video please let me know before you report to youtube
It is unlikely the uploader holds the rights to this, or any of its uploads, or that it has legal authority to release them under a Creative Commons license. ℯxplicit 03:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. @Explicit: as uploader, I did not pay attention to this, i just wanted "a 2018 video from Lebanon". --Rafic.Mufid (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope: unused personal photo and unlikely to be used in a project. Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
non-free image from the film "The Chinese Room". See the center of poster image at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1326199/mediaviewer/rm2390199040 104.163.148.25 08:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:57, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Invalid description : picture taken in France in 1960 [6], any reason for Italian law (even Artt. 185, 189) to apply. To be undeleted in 2030. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pourquoi 2030 ? - Groupir ! (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gérard Barray, Jean Marais & Geneviève Grad — Le Capitaine Fracasse (1961).jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Files uploaded by Peter Reichler (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical documents. Proper author/date/country of creation information should be supplied to determine copyrights status and license tags corrected.
- File:Anmeldung-Kleiderkasse-Rückseite.jpg
- File:Anmeldung-Kleiderkasse-Vorderseite.jpg
- File:DR-Rangabzeichen-ab-1974.jpg
- File:Glöwen-Havelberg 1968. Kursbuch. .jpg
- File:Kleinbahn Emden 1897.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC) Diese Dateien wurden gelöscht, obwohl ich versichert habe, das sie mein geistiges Produkt sind. Ich bezweifle, das der Löschantragsteller der deutschen Sprache mächtig ist und bezweifle, ob er fähig ist zu unterscheiden zwischen historisch wertvoll und aktuellen Material--Peter Reichler (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Deleted by Jameslwoodward. --Gbawden (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Delete: František Horniak is still alive and Czech Republic stamps are copyright for 70 years pma of both the designer and engraver per Commons:Stamps/Public domain#Czech Republic. For this stamp he is listed as both on this stamp catalogue webpage. Ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
<
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:04, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
File:Astronomische Nachrichten, Todesanzeige Heinrich Christian Schumacher am 5. Januar 1851 in den Astronomischen Nachrichten.jpg
[edit]
replaced by Astronomische Nachrichten, Todesanzeige Heinrich Christian Schumacher am 5. Januar 1851.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Clearly not taken in February 2018, appears to be official team portrait. Please provide more info and/or upload the high-res version Ytoyoda (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Out of Project scope! Defective, consent of the subject questionable. Ras67 (talk) 18:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
useless, not used in Wikipedia Derbrauni (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:07, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-free work, as stamp is only issued in 1992. The Banner (talk) 19:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
according to the Israeli wikipedia, it is allowed to use a picture of an Israeli stamp if it was published after 1968, and if the stamp is mentioned in the page. since the stamp is mentioned in the page, I don't see a reason to remove it. https://lookup-api.apple.com/he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%95%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A4%D7%93%D7%99%D7%94:%D7%96%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%95%D7%AA%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA
- If I use Google translate to translate that page, apart of it reads: Photographing or scanning of an Israeli stamp - only stamps issued before 1968 - is permitted. This one is from 1992.
- Another part reads: Photographing or scanning of an Israeli stamp - permitted under fair use - for stamps issued from 1968, provided that the value mentions them. But this image is filed as PD-Israel, and not as fair use (what is not accepted on Commons anyway)
- The unofficial translation] of the Copyright Act of 2007 does - as far as I can see - specifically stamps.
- As long as it is not clear permitted, we should be cautions. The Banner (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: See Commons:Stamps/Public_domain#Israel. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't understand. The stamp is mentioned in the page. According to the fair use, I can put the stamp in the page as long as I mention it, even if it is published after 1968...
no indication of free release MB298 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Videoplasty (talk · contribs)
[edit]Animated GIF cartoon, out of scope, files are too high res for animation to work here. Commons is not a web host
- File:Man Waving Hand GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Working at his Desk GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Working at his Laptop on the Couch GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Walking GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Tired Man Drinking Coffee GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Traveling with Luggage GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Thinking GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Talking Angry on the Phone GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Talking on the Phone GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Taking a Selfie GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Sleeping at his Desk GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Sleeping in Bed GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Being Sad GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Running Scared GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Running GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Relaxing on the Beach GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Reading the Newspaper on the Couch GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Pointing to the Right GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Playing with Tablet GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Playing Guitar Standing GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Playing Guitar Sitting GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Looking at Phone GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Driving Car GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Getting an Idea GIF Animation Loop.gif
- File:Man Taking a Selfie GIF Loop.gif
- File:Man Reading Newspaper.jpg
Ronhjones (Talk) 19:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
1) GIF is an accepted file format here and there are also other vector cartoons here that people use for sure with proper attribution, so I don't think a GIF cartoon is out of scope
2) High filesize - agreed. Unfortunately, there is no other way to optimize this for file size even better and we thought it's best to provide a high res, high FPS version that people can downscale later as needed
3) Web host - I don't understand the point of this comment, as we're obviously not hosting these GIFs here for storage. We are freely contributing with these high-quality assets that we have worked very hard to create and want to share with others [User:VideoPlasty]]
- @VideoPlasty:
- Scope - see Commons:Project scope - note Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose..
- High filesize - no one can see the animation on the file page, without taking the time to show the largeest image, the file is too big for the wiki software to animate - all the pages say Note: Due to technical limitations, thumbnails of high resolution GIF images such as this one will not be animated.
- (P.S. standard procedure on conversations is to bottom post)
- Ronhjones (Talk) 20:45, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones:
- I'm trying to understand this system and how it works, sorry about that.
- "Useful for an educational purpose" - I think it covers it. GIF files can be used in so many ways to visually show your idea, so I don't think this is an issue. Just see how much it's used in messaging, I see no reason for them not to be useful for an educational purpose, in articles, presentations, etc.
- Filesize - okay, I can try and make them smaller in filesize. Would that be okay? Maybe with a lower resolution and smaller frames per second, but I should be able to pull it off. I'm open if you have any guidelines or technical limitations for GIF (I'll search myself too)
- Hello, I agree, these can be used for educational purposes. It is very difficult to find stock photos for free. That said, you will need to prove to Commons:OTRS that you are indeed the founder of VideoPlasty. The other thing to consider is.. you sell this stock photos online? Why would you want to allow someone to download them for free? You lose all profit. I am happy to keep this DR if you can provide permission through COM:OTRS proving you own the website and want to share these files on Commons under the depicted license. ~riley (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - source site is "Copyright 2018 © VideoPlasty.com". These can be restored if both (a) an authorized representative of VideoPlasty sends a free license using OTRS and (b) it can be shown that they are in scope and not just personal art which we do not keep. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Riley:
- Sorry for the late reply, I still don't know exactly how this works (ie: don't get any notifications). I have sent two separate emails on different occasions as requested to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org, last one on the 1st of March. To prove ownership of VideoPlasty.com, I sent it from my eduard
videoplasty · com address (please edit/delete after so it's not crawled) and I created a quick page on the site specifically for this: https://videoplasty.com/wikimedia-commons/ - I don't sell them as GIF files on my store, but as higher quality MOV files. I'm giving some away for free as we are a new company and there are plenty more in the works anyway, so it's not a big deal for us.
- You can delete these files completely please, as I will upload smaller resolution / filesize, that are easier to use. I just want to remove the warning from my account so I can upload other files
- ~Videoplasty (talk), 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Videoplasty (talk · contribs) 2
[edit]Delete as a courtesy per COM:AN#VideoPlasty (continue from Archive 70). Little educational usefulness.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
.svg){kind=link}
_Bag_Flat_Icon_Vector.svg){kind=link}
— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]- Delete I think I've heard enough about this. Delete as a courtesy to the uploader. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Umm...So somebody tried to use Commons as a ploy for SEO and it backfired, and even though these all seem to be pretty good quality images, and certainly usable as icons for project pages even if they may not be appropriate for articles, and many/most of them seem to have already been copied on other websites IAW their license, and they were apparently happy to use up the time of our OTRS volunteers in validating these licenses, they now want them all courtesy deleted because they figured out they're not making any money by giving away images? Am I missing something? In what way is the moral of this story not "don't try to exploit commons for SEO, and don't license your images for free if you don't want people using them freely"? GMGtalk 14:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Umm, so your argument is we should keep them out of spite because they wasted our time? Lots of things waste our time, get over it. FWIW, both Creative Commons and WMF encourage users to donate images to Commons as a SEO tactic. It isn't exploitation. The hope is it is mutually beneficial. But they aren't benefiting us and they certainly aren't benefiting them. Videoplasty made a mistake and let's not rub their nose in it. -- Colin (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- No, my argument is shaping up to be very much that they're appropriately licensed and within scope. Also, courtesy deleting a few images because someone clicked the wrong button on Flickr (which I've supported before to be sure) is one thing, but deleting 520 images that have already been verified through OTRS is not a precedent that I would really like to see set. GMGtalk 14:55, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think they had a premedated plan where though giving away free images they will make money. I think they had a business, essentially tried to advertise, and through that made a series of mistakes. I don't think these are files we would normally keep. I've yet to see where many/most of them seem to have already been copied on other websites under these licenses other then a few. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument of not setting a precedent but I think this can be done as a courtesy. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Picking one at random, it looks like this one has already been copied about a dozen times, meaning it's just as likely to end up back here under an appropriate license. That's what happens when you upload images and then take months to say anything about it. And we certainly keep all kinds of icons, may thousands of them in fact. I mean, again, courtesy deletion is one thing, but deleting hundreds of good quality files where no replacement has been identified, or may in fact exist on Commons, after they've all been OTRS verified, and after they've been available here for months...that's something entirely different. That looks like precedent that could endanger thousands of donated images, notwithstanding removing the evidence that those who are reusing the files already are doing so under the appropriate license. GMGtalk 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would be up to the uploader to deal with the washout from this backfired mistake. We have deleted images in the past when the uploader hasn't fully understood the licensing, with it anyone who had re-used the works prior to the courtesy deletion would still be licensed as under a Creative Commons license. This isn't a precedent, since we've done courtesy deletions in the past but this one has been dragged out for quite sometime. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this isn't someone who doesn't understand the license. This is someone going to great lengths to appropriately license and verify their content so they can try to exploit Commons to promote their business. And then when their scheme doesn't work out, they want to take all the volunteer time that went into sorting and verifying the images, and which they were happy to exploit when they thought they could make a few bucks, and then throw it all away. I don't think we should be in the business of deleting good quality in-scope images en masse because it doesn't fit with the business model of a person who knew exactly what they were doing when they licensed them. GMGtalk 16:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- GreenMeansGo, courtesy deletion is nothing to do with "in scope and appropriately licensed". That's an invalid reason to keep for such. "In scope" is a binary judgement for regular deletion discussions and involves people weighing the educational value of the images and seeing if it meets a very low threshold. The fact that someone could perhaps seen a limited educational use for a few (certainly not all) of these images doesn't mean the educational value is high. They don't illustrate anything (like how a gear works) not do they provide a valuable visual description of a real world object like a photograph would. It is just corporate eyecandy clipart. So the minimal loss to this project is one argument that helps the case for courtesy deletion. The other sites you link are just scraping sites that link back to Commons - I don't suppose many of them meets the reliability standards for someone here to upload content again. Likely they are full of copyvio "found on the web". The fact that we have thousands of icons, covering many of the subjects above, is actually an argument for courtesy deletion, not against. It shoes that these files are easily replaceable.
- Your main argument seems to be they knew what they were doing and wasted our time, and so we're going to punish them for the time wasting by keeping the images out of spite, or because you've fallen for the sunk cost fallacy. The time spent by others on these images is not your concern, it's gone, and we just look forward. We have lots of images where people have categorised, described in multiple languages, included on Wikipedia, and then get found to be copyvios and deleted. As Bidgee explains, courtesy deletion is an ad hoc per-case discussion with the community making a humane choice, rather than following rules. It isn't a slipperly slope nor does it endanger any reusers by "removing the evidence" that's sad old myth some make: The "evidence" is easily recovered by any admin and Vidoeplasty would have to lie in court to try to sue anyone over them. So just FUD spreading here. -- Colin (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It has to do with not rewarding someone for attempting to abuse the system and its volunteers for personal gain. Deleting these images so someone can charge money for images that are free is entirely against the purpose all of these volunteers are volunteering for in the first place. That's silly, and there's not a bit of sunk cost involved until we decide to take all that volunteer time and throw it away so someone can make money off free content, because their scheme to funnel traffic to their website didn't work as intended. GMGtalk 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- "nor does it endanger any reusers by "removing the evidence" that's sad old myth some make: The "evidence" is easily recovered by any admin"
- Except such cases rarely make it to any court. The usual practice (I'm not saying Videoplasty will, but they certainly could) is to send a scary letter and the case will usually be settled out of court. The re-user may never even think of asking an admin or looking on archive.org. When a re-user does, such cases are typically dropped. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is anything you wrote based on any actual facts regarding Commons images? I suggest you just made it up. Even the link you gave is utterly irrelevant. You really think any party is going to involve lawyers over a $5 clip art image? -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, I mean, why not? And let's not forget about our friend Marco Verch either. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Is anything you wrote based on any actual facts regarding Commons images? I suggest you just made it up. Even the link you gave is utterly irrelevant. You really think any party is going to involve lawyers over a $5 clip art image? -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- It has nothing to do with punishing anyone. It has to do with not rewarding someone for attempting to abuse the system and its volunteers for personal gain. Deleting these images so someone can charge money for images that are free is entirely against the purpose all of these volunteers are volunteering for in the first place. That's silly, and there's not a bit of sunk cost involved until we decide to take all that volunteer time and throw it away so someone can make money off free content, because their scheme to funnel traffic to their website didn't work as intended. GMGtalk 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Bidgee: The uploader very clearly understood the license - see the previous DR on this very page, and also the OTRS ticket. They possibly misunderstood the consequences of the license--at least that appears to be the salient claim. Storkk (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this isn't someone who doesn't understand the license. This is someone going to great lengths to appropriately license and verify their content so they can try to exploit Commons to promote their business. And then when their scheme doesn't work out, they want to take all the volunteer time that went into sorting and verifying the images, and which they were happy to exploit when they thought they could make a few bucks, and then throw it all away. I don't think we should be in the business of deleting good quality in-scope images en masse because it doesn't fit with the business model of a person who knew exactly what they were doing when they licensed them. GMGtalk 16:25, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would be up to the uploader to deal with the washout from this backfired mistake. We have deleted images in the past when the uploader hasn't fully understood the licensing, with it anyone who had re-used the works prior to the courtesy deletion would still be licensed as under a Creative Commons license. This isn't a precedent, since we've done courtesy deletions in the past but this one has been dragged out for quite sometime. Bidgee (talk) 15:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Picking one at random, it looks like this one has already been copied about a dozen times, meaning it's just as likely to end up back here under an appropriate license. That's what happens when you upload images and then take months to say anything about it. And we certainly keep all kinds of icons, may thousands of them in fact. I mean, again, courtesy deletion is one thing, but deleting hundreds of good quality files where no replacement has been identified, or may in fact exist on Commons, after they've all been OTRS verified, and after they've been available here for months...that's something entirely different. That looks like precedent that could endanger thousands of donated images, notwithstanding removing the evidence that those who are reusing the files already are doing so under the appropriate license. GMGtalk 15:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think they had a premedated plan where though giving away free images they will make money. I think they had a business, essentially tried to advertise, and through that made a series of mistakes. I don't think these are files we would normally keep. I've yet to see where many/most of them seem to have already been copied on other websites under these licenses other then a few. I have a lot of sympathy for the argument of not setting a precedent but I think this can be done as a courtesy. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Per discussion on AN. Very little value to us. We don't exist to supply "icons for project pages" (GMG above): that isn't our educational purpose. While users on the projects might find a very few of these icons useful to jazz up a project page, they certainly aren't irreplaceable for that purpose and hardly unique. Most of them could not be used for any Wikiproject. Corporate clip art is not really our thing. These icons were uploaded by mistake and are killing Videoplasty's business. It would be nice of us if we courtesy deleted them. Videoplasty appears to understand all the implications/limitations, apologises and promises not to sue anyone, etc, etc. -- Colin (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete courtesy deletion per Colin reasoning above. Bidgee (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per the ANI discussion and per Colins replies and !vote - Being honest there's not really any images in that list that could be used, Also as I said on the ANI report I can't watch people lose their jobs and business over a silly mistake like this, Courtesy delete. –Davey2010Talk 16:18, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep All but File:Man Reading Newspaper.jpg and any similarly water marked images, although I haven't found others. These are appropriate images, with appropriate licenses, uploaded with full knowledge of the licensing, already being used on multiple projects, that have been uploaded for months. We ought not be in the business of rewarding people who openly abuse volunteer time in a scheme to make money, by allowing them to throw away all that volunteer time so that they can charge money for free content. I have little sympathy for the "turns out I can't make money off you guys, so may I please have my pictures back" line of argument. That's abusive and ought not be rewarded, especially not in a way that actively makes the project worse by deleting hundreds of files. GMGtalk 18:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GreenMeansGo: File:Man Reading Newspaper.jpg is the only one, also the only one not to be included in the zipped archive. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep on all counts:
- Are they educational? Yes. This kind of stock animation is a basis for all kinds of educational videos. Hospitals, for example, often use this kind of material to create a video that explains what a conversation with a doctor will be like to prepare the patient for that. Any kind of social situation could be explained in video form and if that's not educational I don't know what is.
- Was Videoplasty blissfully unaware? User:~riley said this in the closed DR above this one: "That said, you will need to prove to Commons:OTRS that you are indeed the founder of VideoPlasty. The other thing to consider is.. you sell this stock photos online? Why would you want to allow someone to download them for free? You lose all profit.". Their response was to send permission to OTRS!
- If we allow this to be courtesy deleted, regardless of whether or not Videoplasty made an "honest mistake", I expect other companies to upload their content to Commons to boost their Google ranking and get their content "out there". They can do so comforted by the knowledge they can still get their content deleted 5 months later.
- @Jeff G.: User:Jcb told Videoplasty to request courtesy deletion on AN. They did. That's were the discussion was taking place. I think starting this DR was out of place. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, first of all let me clarify this, I don’t want anyone to lose their jobs over Wikimedia, but these images should be kept for a whole lot of reasons. Let’s first look at the timeline, (1) the account “Videoplasty” got registered, this is already something amazing as this is a company account and there are admins that patrol new user names just to block ones that sound like they’re from an institution or more than one person uses it, Videoplasty is a company and although we have accounts like User:Swiss National Library which is a major contributor to Wikimedia Commons, most will simply get blocked on sight so even the fact that these files got uploaded was an unlikely event, (2) these media files then got deleted but were restored through OTRS permission confirmed to have come from Videoplasty, and (3) these files are now so widely shared that they have become a threat to the business model of Videoplasty. I’ve seen many educational images got deleted because they were “promotional” in fact I remember a user who wrote a book and then decided to donate images from his book to Wikimedia Commons, User:INeverCry banned him and all of his work was deleted, who benefited from this? Nobody, educational material was lost and a high quality photographer disallowed from contributing here, how is this relevant? Simple, because on Wikimedia projects there seems to be a contradictory culture regarding donations regardless if it’s from a for-profit or a non-profit entity and people cry COI left and right like Don Quijote, only rarely do companies even get to the point where their media gets donated and the media donated by Videoplasty is of high quality, yes people like Slowling4 gave bad advice saying to change the license, but why was it wrong 👎🏻? Simple, Creative Commons licenses are non revocable. Let’s look at more reasons one-by-one...
- {{Keep|Reason 1}}, as I stated above this is long past the time window for “a courtesy deletion” to take place, if it were a week or so, sure but the files donated by Videoplasty have been donated some time ago, and as I said before, the people at Videoplasty had a very long time to think about donating their beautiful animations to Wikimedia Commons and counciously did so with every step, if it were after the first time, I’d still oppose deletion but I would understand why, but after so many chances, this is bonkers!
- {{Keep|Reason 2}}, this would sent a message to “spammers” (using quotation marks here because the Wikimedia definition of “spam” seems to be very fluid and inconsistent, as donations from some are “spam” but from GLAM’s aren’t, but that’s a whole other discussion). All the “spam-fighters” on every Wikimedia project combined couldn't even dream of hurting “spammers” as much as Videoplasty just did, no matter how much effort they would put into fighting “spam” it would never ever be so effective as... And I mean no offense when I write this “Darwin award winning” effects of this donation by Videoplasty. This would basically send a message that “spammers” should be happy about “spam-fighters” because if their content remains up they’re going to be the losers. When you choose to donate your work to Wikimedia Commons you can’t make a profit, EVER, essentially by promoting your company you actually give everyone permission to “steal” your work, and there’s nothing you can ever do about it (see Reason 3), this essentially means that if spammers are “successful” and their work remains on Wikimedia (something that happens a lot more often than you think), their ability to make a profit disappears. External links on Wikimedia websites won't be followed by search engines while that same content is usually placed first on Wikimedia, this is what Videoplasty are complaining about and this is what will hurt “spammers” the most, “spam-fighters” were simply not smart enough to realise that the best way to fight “spammers” is by doing nothing and this will hurt them where they least expected it... Their wallet, if the headlines tomorrow read “start up gone bankrupt because of Wikimedia Commons” then this will do more to stop “spammers” than supposed “spam-fighters” ever will. ”Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, the marketing tool that will destroy your market value.”
- {{Keep|Reason 3}}, I have stated that Creative Commons licenses are non-revocable before but will repeat it here, and please read Commons:License revocation so even if they want to change their mind, they can’t, let me quote “Deleting a work from Commons does not revoke its licenses. Anyone who has the work or gains access to it in future can continue to use it under the terms of those licenses.” So even if all of these media files will get deleted today they will still be accessible and usable and can be distributed for free and there is nothing Videoplasty can do about it, no court of law ⚖ will side with them unless an actual copyright infringement would occur. Also remember that we share our work here because we don't want to make money, I saw my own work appear in major international newssites like Yahoo! Finance and was delighted to see it, here you only have donors, no sales(wo)men and although courtesy deletions are a thing, these files have (often) been uploaded twice and the fact that they’re released with a Creative Commons license is confirmed with an OTRS ticket. If Videoplasty were from a poor country like Cambodia, Botswana, Etc. and were just trying to make a living I would've felt bad for them but Romania is basically as rich as it gets, and paying $ 5,- for an animation is ridiculously expensive, giving that animation away for $ 0,- is even more ridiculous but this was an error on Videoplasty’s marketing department, Eduard shouldn't lose his job over that.
All it takes is someone seeing this deletion request and then immediately caching the files in the Internet Archives and then pointing there whenever they use the files, Videoplasty loses anyway. I know that the company is looking for any excuse as to why they are not financially profitable at the moment but Wikimedia Commons is a scapegoat. Years after these files would be deleted here, any court will uphold the creative commons licenses they were uploaded here with.
- {{Keep|Reason 4}}, but even if the first 3 (three) reasons were to be accepted the main question is “are these files educational?” yes, yes they are. To compare File:Kirchner - arugula-and-his-dog.jpg could theoretically only be used in a Wikipedia article about Kirchner or maybe just this particular style of painting but File:Corporate Woman Talking on the Phone GIF Animation Loop.gif shows a good depiction how a person looks when they are having a conversation on a mobile telephone, this could be used to illustrate that fact. “Educational value” contrary to what many people here seem to think does not mean “could be used on Wikipedia” which is a very narrow definition, it just means “could be used to educate someone”, a .gif of an alarm ⏰ shows how an alarm goes off, a still photo can never convey that properly, if a picture tells a thousand words an animation tells a million. Contrary to using real people, using these animations would actually help with maintaining a neutral point of view as it doesn't give any undue value to the importance of a particular human being over the other for doing a certain act. Does
have an educational value? Yes, it does too.
Also, are y’all telling me that uneducational files got deleted by sysops, then uneducational files got restored and then these uneducational files remained here for half a year? I highly doubt so, you can send OTRS permission for your selfie where you pose with your Chihuahua in your little pink handbag and pruned lips in front of your bathroom mirror but no one will restore that image. If there was anything wrong with the educational value of these files they wouldn't have ever been restored.
- {{Keep|Reason 5}}, the only real precedent deleting these files would say is “At Wikimedia Commons we don't take Creative Commons licenses serious” because CC licenses are irrevocable and are to promote free culture, deletion of these files spits in the face of that.
To close it off, my advice to Videoplasty would be to change the required attribution on their license to something people don't want to see, something that really disrupts like those messages at free trials like say “This animation was provided to you by Videoplasty.com, to use this animation without paying a fee this message should be prominently displayed at 600% the size of the animation below or besides it, if you want to stop seeing this message then please go to m.videoplast.com/NAME OF THE SHOP”, the license would still be free, but anyone using it is required to attribute you in that way, it doesn't invalidate any prior license but neither will (needless) deletion. In case this suggestion is disruptive then inform me, I don’t want anyone to be annoyed by such a long message but this simply seems like a better solution than pretending like the images were never here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
- Please change your {{Keep}} templates above - it appears deceptive. Your last point is also deceptive, or at least unhelpful. CC-By SA 4.0 specifically allows attribution "in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context". Storkk (talk) 09:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pardon about the suggestion, I forgot to strike it after Alexis Jazz 🎺 mentioned it on my talk page. Also I am not sure how anyone could see Reason1 as "deceptive" as it's "a reason to keep" and deletion requests aren't a vote so even if someone couldn't read and only looked at the logo's (which should probably disqualify them from adminship as they would then clearly not understand how deletion requests work) the text besides them didn't read "Keep". Anyhow I nowiki'd the templates and struck the bad advice, I am still reading that entire Creative Commons FAQ, it would probably be best to link that somewhere in the UploadWizard. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Pardon about the suggestion, I forgot to strike it after Alexis Jazz 🎺 mentioned it on my talk page. Also I am not sure how anyone could see
- I see the arguments on both sides here, but would lean Weak keep mostly per GreenMeansGo and Alexis Jazz. I also think that deleting these after having kept these other files, where the arguments for deletion seem to me to be similar but significantly stronger, would be a little absurd. However, while consistency in our decisions is desirable, precedents should not take precedence to making good decisions (apologies for that pun). Storkk (talk) 10:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Storkk, this is nothing like the Wellcome DR. As the proposed policy Commons:Courtesy deletions says, one factor is "Is the file something we have lots of, or something that is pretty much irreplaceable? ". The Wellcome images are irreplaceable educational content in themselves. These clip arts are absolutely not, despite claims that some educational video could re-use them, they don't in themselves provided educational content, and that's a difference. These icons are trivially replaceable by numerous alternatives. So I don't see the comparison or contradiction in lettings these go. I didn't read Donald's rationale, because life is too short, but I am very disappointed by the rationales given by GMG and Alexis, which are full of made-up-stories about how Videoplasty might send angry letters to re-users (they have very much promised not to) and are frankly vindictive based on bad-faith accusations of exploitation. This isn't some huge organisation, like Wellcome, who have lawyers and experts on hand, but a sole trader who made a bad business decision and is being directly financially harmed as a result.
- Our Courtesy Deletion practice is an opportunity to something we don't need to but choose to because of what sort of people we are, not to sit in judgement about what sort of person someone else is. Are we kind, generous and forgiving, or mean spirited and judgemental and grudge bearing? -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well I apologize if I came off as vindictive. I don't mean to assume any bad faith other than that we were explicitly told, that this was done as a way to entice people to go to their website and buy images. The community did everything in their power to be completely transparent about the process and the consequences, and the response was there are plenty more in the works anyway, so it's not a big deal for us. That strongly implies that one side in this discussion was being less than honest, and based on that, the community invested a non-trivial amount of time in complying with the request. To delete the images then as a courtesy looks very much like being doubly complicit, first in giving our blessing to using up volunteer time as a marketing ploy disguised as altruism, and second into deceiving our audience into paying for free media, which is entirely antithetical to the goals of the project. GMGtalk 12:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with your characterization of GMG's and Alexis's comments. I would also note that Commons:Courtesy deletions is a proposed guideline that has not been accepted, and in any case appears to be descriptive rather than prescriptive: it says we are "more likely to delete" easily replaced files. Even stipulating the proposed guideline, I'm not sure how "easily" replaced these are. Storkk (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- "exploit commons for SEO", "less than honest", "marketing ploy disguised as altruism", "deceiving our audience into paying for free media", "like precedent that could endanger thousands of donated images", "It has to do with not rewarding someone for attempting to abuse the system and its volunteers for personal gain", "openly abuse volunteer time in a scheme to make money", "abusive and ought not be rewarded". I fail to see how any of those statements can be interpreted in any way other than an extremely negative judgemental view of Videoplasty justifying a vindictive vote to keep the images out of spite. I'm well aware courtesy deletion is proposed policy. This is a fine example of Commons curators attacking content producers, and inventing arguments to keep content just because it is free and just because we can. I'm rather tired of that, especially by people who don't themselves create content for a living or for Commons. There's a team of graphic artists in Romania who might once have considered creating some educational content for Commons or Wikipedia, and telling their creative friends about it, but now will instead be spreading scare stories about how mean the folk on Commons are and how to not touch it with a barge pole. And for what? Some office clip art. Yay, way to go Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- "There's a team of graphic artists in Romania who might once have considered creating some educational content for Commons or Wikipedia"
- I don't believe in fairytales.
- "and telling their creative friends about it, but now will instead be spreading scare stories about how mean the folk on Commons are and how to not touch it with a barge pole."
- That would be perfect! We don't need more companies uploading their content to boost their Google ranking, only to try and have it deleted 4-5 months later. Please, please let them tell their friends about this experience so they will understand Creative Commons is irrevocable and Commons is not just a tool to boost their rankings! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- "exploit commons for SEO", "less than honest", "marketing ploy disguised as altruism", "deceiving our audience into paying for free media", "like precedent that could endanger thousands of donated images", "It has to do with not rewarding someone for attempting to abuse the system and its volunteers for personal gain", "openly abuse volunteer time in a scheme to make money", "abusive and ought not be rewarded". I fail to see how any of those statements can be interpreted in any way other than an extremely negative judgemental view of Videoplasty justifying a vindictive vote to keep the images out of spite. I'm well aware courtesy deletion is proposed policy. This is a fine example of Commons curators attacking content producers, and inventing arguments to keep content just because it is free and just because we can. I'm rather tired of that, especially by people who don't themselves create content for a living or for Commons. There's a team of graphic artists in Romania who might once have considered creating some educational content for Commons or Wikipedia, and telling their creative friends about it, but now will instead be spreading scare stories about how mean the folk on Commons are and how to not touch it with a barge pole. And for what? Some office clip art. Yay, way to go Commons. -- Colin (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Things may have been different if they had requested deletion within 2 weeks or so. And if they hadn't been properly informed, but ~riley was very clear. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:56, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Our Courtesy Deletion practice is an opportunity to something we don't need to but choose to because of what sort of people we are, not to sit in judgement about what sort of person someone else is. Are we kind, generous and forgiving, or mean spirited and judgemental and grudge bearing? -- Colin (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, free images like these are difficult to find. They may not be educational on their own (similar to most content on commons), but can be used as eye-catchers especially to illustrate educational content that is otherwise difficult to illustrate. --Schlurcher (talk) 05:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Question has anyone notified the uploader by other means? YouTube, Facebook https://videoplasty.com/contact/. Their input would be useful here. Where are previous discussions showing other animations of this nature being in scope? All the in scope arguments are weak unless some precedence is shown.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Well according to this tool (search by username "Videoplasty", can't link to search results because the url includes "[]") 25 files are currently being used 82 times across projects, including two uses so far in main spaces here and here, although the lion's share of all current uses appears to be on de.wiki in various templates. GMGtalk 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Only mainspace counts, which is two usages. The first is supposed to demonstrate muscle contraction to cause movement, but the animation used does not actually show any muscles. It is no more useful than an animation of a car to demonstrate how an internal combustion engine works. So, not actually educational. Easily replaced with e.g., File:Quadricep-animation.gif which is superior and show muscles. The second is just eye-candy for the section "I check my knowledge" / "Final evaluation" in an article on the Solar System, and again there are countless icons that could be used for that, if icons are needed at all. Not very convincing. GMG, you keep talking about "not rewarding someone". Have you considered that these images were created by Videoplasty as part of their job, to earn a living. They are all owned by Videoplasty, not us. By deleting them we don't "reward" anyone, as we have nothing to give: we can only take. You didn't create any artistic content here, representing hours of creative talent. You are just someone who edits a community wiki. All you can do at this point, is to decide whether the educational value of these images is so important, that you'd like this guy to earn less from their job. You can only take. And because this guy made a poor business decision a few months ago, you want to take. I think your glamorous search rather emphasizes my argument. They are eye candy and not educational. Earning money from artwork you have created isn't evil and isn't against all that Commons stands for. Artwork and photography are fairly immature at present wrt commercial vs freely licensed, whereas software has matured and we see open source and commercial usage are best friends. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- "Has anyone notified the uploader by other means?"
- Well according to this tool (search by username "Videoplasty", can't link to search results because the url includes "[]") 25 files are currently being used 82 times across projects, including two uses so far in main spaces here and here, although the lion's share of all current uses appears to be on de.wiki in various templates. GMGtalk 13:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- They uploaded it here, they have an account, they requested deletion multiple times, if they can't be bothered to respond it's their loss. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Question, can't someone theoretically re-upload all of these files claiming a free license after they're deleted? Because they were all irrevocably released with a free license, I'm not advocating for anyone to do that as it's. Stupid but deleting these files won't invalidate the license and at present other websites have copied these animations from Wikimedia Commons so all it would do is make these images less likely to be used on Wikimedia projects, not outside and as GreenMesnsGo already noted some usage statistics I wonder what we would gain from deleting these images donated with a free license. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:52, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- Donald, the decision to host or not to host the files is a community decision. While re-uploading the images after deletion would be legally permitted per the licence, it would not be permissible at a community level. The gain to deleting them is that commercial users, companies, businesses, etc, who are quite willing to spend $5 for some clip art for their business power point presentation, are currently finding them on Commons via Google, and so taking them for free. If removed from Commons, then it is far less likely that revenue will be lost. -- Colin (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Derivates I made:
- File:Black Woman Holding Nothing Cartoon.svg
- File:Woman Takes Picture Cartoon.svg
- File:Redhead Takes Picture Cartoon.svg
- File:Woman In Blue Holding Nothing Cartoon.svg
- File:Hand Gesture - Open Palm Vector Mid Complexion.svg
- File:Red Car Closed Window Cartoon Vector.svg
- File:Woman Talking on the Phone Cartoon.svg
- File:Hand Gesture - Open Palm Vector Asian Complexion.svg
- File:Hand Gesture - Open Palm Vector Black Complexion.svg
- File:Woman Holding Nothing Cartoon.svg
- File:Professor Holding Nothing Cartoon.svg
- File:Hands typing on black laptop scene.svg
- File:Hands typing on white laptop scene.svg
Reason for making them:
- File:Licensing tutorial English alternative.png (I've been meaning to make an alternate version of the licensing tutorial but didn't have the material for it, these cartoons allowed it) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's a low move Alexis. Create a new version of a perfectly OK tutorial page deliberately using images in a deletion discussion. That's like someone who is trying to prevent "out of scope" images being deleted going over to Wikipedia to stuff them into articles that already had perfectly good images already. I'm disgusted with the insults and accusations made by you and GMG towards someone who donated images in good faith and the hope of mutual benefit. Both of your purpose here has been entirely driven by spiteful ill will towards creative talent. Unwatching. -- Colin (talk) 10:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm impressed by the new files from Alexis Jazz. This shows that it is apparently very easy to derive additional content from the SVGs to make them fit to various contents. --Schlurcher (talk) 22:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
--- Hello everyone! This is Eduard, founder of VideoPlasty and uploader of all the images. I was actively involved in the discussions previously, in another page that I was watching, I see things moved here and I missed it, sorry! I appreciate everyone jumping in and providing their honest opinion and I value debating both sides of the argument, but I have to say that I have no idea how to react to this as I'm quite shocked by some of the things I read here, as some users here have turned this into a very personal vendetta against me, making up weird arguments or coming up with extremely low moves, as we see here with the derivative work.
As for the SEO argument, let's make it clear that it doesn't work that way. SEO 101 makes it quite obvious that if the files are deleted from here, all the pages linking back (backlinks) will disappear overnight, so that's 400-500 backlinks gone, from a very prestigious domain, which will be a massive red flag for Google. Rankings will certainly go down, not stay up. So the argument that I tried to exploit the system and then remove the files, like the rankings would still remain the same, is not just flawed, but blatantly vindictive. I'm willing to take a major Google blow, that's how important this deletion is for me.
As a quick recap of the entire situation and how we ended up here. Our main business model was supposed to be selling stock animations in MOV format. I never thought people would care too much about GIFs, being a more limited file format for animation. GIFs were recently introduced and I thought uploading low res/quality versions here would be a win-win situation. Some people get to use them for free and discover us that way (plus provide a link back to us as attribution), we get some backlinks and new clients. Unbeknownst to us, people were waaay more interested in the GIF versions, rather than the MOVs, as they're more user-friendly (so wider audience). What ended up happening is people don't ever buy the high res versions from us, they even email us saying "can we really just use them for free from Wikimedia instead of paying for them on your store?". Also, some use them without attribution directly and it's hard to hunt those down and I'm not in the business to sue people over this. Another unforeseen consequence of that was that most of our traffic comes from SEO and of course, for long tail keywords like "Man Waving Hand GIF Animation", the free version here will always rank #1, no matter what we do with the "premium" ones. As for the SVG uploads, we never intended to sell those, so I figured it's a really good donation, again, for a win-win situation. We're in the process of adding those to the store as well to sell and the exact same thing will happen.
I do appreciate the volunteer work you do here and I apologize for having wasted any of your time with this. But please keep in mind, we've spent 12 months and $10k creating all those assets, so it's basically a massive amount of time and money for Romania.
Here's how I feel at this point, in a small metaphor, if I may. Flawed, but sums it up:
“Poor man loses a bag of money in a land where the rules are "if you find any money, it's yours for the taking". Some find it and are willing to give it back, being understanding of the poor man's situation, on a human level, nevermind the "rules". The others, however, say "oh, look at all this beautiful money, let's keep it for ourselves, it's too beautiful to ever give it back, stupid to have lost such beauty it the first place" and then use it to buy new fancy clothes and go rub it in his face, saying how stupid he was to lose it in the first place. But hey, look at those fancy clothes, aren't they nice, you stupid poor man?”
I'm open for any other questions if we can keep this civilized and not turn into a personal attack. I have uploaded the files in good faith and made a major mistake, not fully understanding the license, which YES, is my own fault. But that is why I'm am here in front of you politely asking you for a courtesy deletion, as it would mean the world to us. I have absolutely no intention in suing anyone for copyright infringement, I would just like the files deleted from here. I also completely understand that other sites might have them, but in all honesty, this one right here is the only one that matters.
Ideally, I would like all uploads deleted, but I would also walk away a happy man even with just half of them deleted (the GIF animations, as animation is our main business, not vectors). Clearly, the animations don't have any educational value other than looking good, that's a non-debatable fact, period. As for the SVGs, I'm willing to take that loss for the stupid mistake that I made and call it a day, maybe we can reach an agreement this way. Also, some users here get to have their fun being vindictive and rubbing it in my face, so everyone wins.
I don't think any of you has anything to win or lose in either situation, whether or not the files get kept or deleted, and I understand you're defending the values of Wikimedia Commons and what CC stands for, but it would mean the world to us if they do get deleted. We're a very small startup and very passionate about animation, but we haven't made a profit yet in over 18 months, so every little sale we can get is very important for us to stay in business, that's why this is crucial for us. It's not exploiting the system, it's simply putting bread on the table. I understand this entire thing was my fault completely and I take full responsibility for getting myself involved in something I didn't completely understand, but given the current situation, I am here in front of you begging you at this point, to please think about this from a human level and please consider the courtesy deletion of all my uploads. --- Videoplasty (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, thanks for your input. Please do not take comments here personally, it is more infighting over principles, rather than you.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Videoplasty: Your poor man story isn't entirely accurate. Here is a more accurate version:
- A poor man takes his savings and goes to a charity. He says "I want to donate all my savings". The charity, let's call them The ~riley Foundation, asks the man "
you sell this stock photos online? Why would you want to allow someone to download them for free? You lose all profit.you want to give us your entire savings? Why would you want us to have that when you may need the money yourself?" The man responds: "I'm giving some away for free as we are a new company and there are plenty more in the works anyway, so it's not a big deal for us.I'm giving away some money as I'm going to earn plenty more, so it's not a big deal for me." - The ~riley Foundation said, "you will need to prove to Commons:OTRS that you are indeed the
founder of VideoPlastyowner of the money and want toshare these files on Commonsgive this money to our charityunder the depicted licenseunderstanding you can't get it back." the man decided to proceed. - 4-5 months later, the man knocked on the door of the charity. "yes, sorry, I made a mistake I guess. I thought I was gonna be rich, but I'm not. Can I have my money back?" The charity, somewhat confused by this, gave the man advice on how to earn some money. The man said "I appreciate you giving me advice on how to run my business, but I didn't ask for any. My problem is simple: I would like ALL my
uploads deletedmoney back. Anything else on how I could potentially run my business is irrelevant." - The man told the charity employee: "Here's how I feel at this point, in a small metaphor, if I may. Flawed, but sums it up: “Poor man loses a bag of money.."
- A poor man takes his savings and goes to a charity. He says "I want to donate all my savings". The charity, let's call them The ~riley Foundation, asks the man "
- It gets repetitive after a while.
- "Ideally, I would like all uploads deleted, but I would also walk away a happy man even with just half of them deleted (the GIF animations, as animation is our main business, not vectors). Clearly, the animations don't have any educational value other than looking good, that's a non-debatable fact, period. As for the SVGs, I'm willing to take that loss for the stupid mistake that I made and call it a day, maybe we can reach an agreement this way. Also, some users here get to have their fun being vindictive and rubbing it in my face, so everyone wins."
- The animations can be used for educational videos, but that being said: I personally value the SVGs much more than the animations. If you hadn't called my derivate work an "extremely low move", my advice for you "irrelevant" and had requested deletion in, say, 6 weeks (which is still well over the usual period for courtesy deletion) I may very well have voted to delete the animations.
- "We're a very small startup and very passionate about animation, but we haven't made a profit yet in over 18 months"
- I actually would want to hear back from you in a few weeks or months if the files are deleted. I want to know if it'll actually increase your sales. It'll be useful information for future debates.
- What I'm going to say now is not a proposal (I'm not in a position to make proposals). While I prefer to keep the files the way they are (but I don't make the call on that), what if the animations were reduced from, say, 400px to 100px? This would mostly remove fears that existing (off-wiki) users wouldn't be able to prove the files they used were properly licensed. I'm not talking about lawsuits, but anyone currently using these animations on their blog, school project, presentation, etc should be able to link to the source that shows the license so anyone can see they are in full compliance with it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: I apologize, I'm under a lot of pressure with this situation and I didn't mean to come across as rude or anything like that. If the files get deleted, you have my word I will get back to you with results and proof of increased sales, I'm 100% sure things would work better for us that way. Of course, there might be other factors involved and it's close to impossible to directly track the increase to the deletion here, but I will do my best to show proof of how sales come from SEO for example, which would mean our images rank high and people click on them rather than those ones here (Google Analytics screenshots, etc.).
- Regarding the story - yes, that's a more accurate version of it, indeed. But even then, I think it would be a good idea to at least consider giving back (some of) the money donated or trying to find a solution and feeling compassionate for the man's mistake.
- As for your proposal with 100px, it's not ideal, but it's still much better than having the files as they currently are, so if the community decides that's the best option available, to just resize the GIFs to 100px and keep the SVGs, I'll take whatever you decide. I thought the resolution I uploaded here was low, and it is compared to the full res we sell, but it's still high enough for people to use in most cases (again, my mistake and I take full responsibility) --Videoplasty (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete all watermarked and unused files as out of scope. Keep all files constructively used in mainspaces before this nomination. I feel this is a suitable compromise.--BevinKacon (talk) 09:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @BevinKacon: That sounds reasonable and I completely agree with this compromise. There is just 1 watermarked image I think, but I imagine most of the other uploads were unused. I don't know how to check, but I read above (some users mentioned) that only a few were actually used.--Videoplasty (talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Weak keep I am very worried, that the story from above ends as: and then he sued the shit out of everybody as this business model proved to be more lucrative. This is why I would strongly support replacing the gif files with a 150px version and keeping the svg files. I made an example of the 150px size and its small enough that it won’t be used in commercial products. Just to make this clear: I am not trying to rub anything in an I am very sympathetic to your case although I really, really doubt that your sales will increase. Your files are popular because they are free. Amada44 talk to me 16:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amada44: I understand your point, but I promise you I have absolutely no intention to sue anyone over this. And besides, as some users pointed out above, that wouldn't be possible, as it would be easy for an admin to prove that the file existed in a deleted page (which I guess remains somewhere hidden). So that would mean I would lie in court. Again, I have absolutely zero interest in this.
- 150px height - again, far from ideal, but still much better than no deletion at all.
- As for the increased sales, it's hard to prove, but it makes more sense. Let me explain my point. Someone searches for Man Waving Hand GIF Animation for example on Google Images or any of the ones we will manage to rank high enough to matter. The first result is here on Wikimedia Commons. It's free, no watermark and good enough resolution. Whereas our own premium version could rank similarly, but paid and with a watermark. In most cases, it's clear which one you'd end up using. We don't rank yet for any of those, as we started making watermarked GIF versions for this specific purpose and stopped when we figured out the GIFs here on Wikimedia Commons could be a problem, so now we're focusing on trying to get this problem solved somehow.Videoplasty (talk) 08:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not just about that, we also wouldn't (for example) want to have a teacher give a scolding to a student for using an animation without permission. As for you, you could extract money from users without admins or courts ever entering the picture, so that argument isn't really valid beyond your word. I'm not saying I don't trust your word, but lying in court or admins proving the license is valid will never play any serious role.
- Just in case: I made smaller versions of all the animations (I uploaded two as new files as an example) but I don't know how I could easily overwrite 265 files. UploadWizard won't let me do it so if we go this route we need to find an easier way. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: I don't know exactly how that works, but I imagine you're right. However, I see some users here think that it's a very small risk and still voted for deletion, given my explanations and based on their gut feeling I imagine. I also understand your point of view of trying to make this 100% risk-free, so no hard feelings.
- Thank you for the small res versions. So what happens now? Is this the final decision/solution? Does someone specific get to decide or how do we do this? --Videoplasty (talk) 16:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- That's actually a good question.. I should probably write an essay about all this that can be shown to other companies in the future to help them figure out how to get the best mutually benificial collaboration with Commons, but that'll be something to do afterwards.
- Pinging @GreenMeansGo, Donald Trung, Storkk, and Schlurcher: who had voted keep. For me personally, I can accept this solution where we keep the SVG files (that I believe have greater educational potential for us) and scale down the GIF to ensure existing users have valid source links to credit. Would the four of you see it this way as well? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- If that's mutually agreeable then I'm fine with it. GMGtalk 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Works for me. --Schlurcher (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- If that's mutually agreeable then I'm fine with it. GMGtalk 22:23, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Does anybody oppose to the suggestion? If no, @Videoplasty: would you be willing to create 150px versions and replace them? Amada44 talk to me 12:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amada44:
I already have 100px versions for all animations (25% actually, I'm not sure 150px will look much better due to how scaling works), I just don't know how to overwrite easily. I'm not sure if it would help if I requested extended uploader.scratch that,just found out my animations don't loop, will have to create them again.scratch that, the original animation (like File:Black Man Playing Guitar Standing GIF Animation Loop.gif) doesn't loop either. They all should though.. so I better create them again anyway. But how to upload? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)- @Alexis Jazz: & @Amada44: It seems like this is the final solution and the best I can get and I don't want to drag this on forever, so I suppose I agree with this compromise of keeping 100px versions for the GIFs and the SVGs as they are. Regarding the loops, it might be the original files that don't all loop -- Videoplasty (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Allright @Videoplasty: , would you do the work of replacing all the gifs? Amada44 talk to me 15:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Videoplasty: It might be that gif files here only loop when displayed, but don't loop on file description pages and may not loop when directly displayed by the browser. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Amada44: I imagine there's an automatic way to do that faster? @Alexis Jazz: already automatically converted all of them to 100px, it's just a matter of deleting the higher resolution for each file I imagine? Any suggestions there? Or did you mean to completely delete those existing and for me to upload the 100px versions as new files? Is that the only way possible? It would be a massive amount of manual work -- Videoplasty (talk) 20:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: & @Amada44: It seems like this is the final solution and the best I can get and I don't want to drag this on forever, so I suppose I agree with this compromise of keeping 100px versions for the GIFs and the SVGs as they are. Regarding the loops, it might be the original files that don't all loop -- Videoplasty (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment I'm rendering the files again (with loop enabled) and have been given a suggestion for overwriting which I'll try once the rendering is done. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)- Comment @Amada44, Jeff G., and Videoplasty: All animated files should have been overwritten with 25% versions. I think the DR can be closed as keep. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:05, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Keep the svg files and the animated files with 25% versions, and revdel the bigger versions, all at the discretion of @Videoplasty. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:37, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Glad we have reached some form of mutual agreement! Thank you @Alexis Jazz: for doing this massive task (hopefully in there was an automated way to do it)! However - @Amada44, Jeff G., and Alexis Jazz: - on a quick look, it seems I can still access the high res original uploads. This can be done both on my Uploads page (where you preview each GIF and access the file that way) OR if you access any individual file in the File History tab. I tried this from a different browser where I'm not logged in, so it's not because I am the original uploader. I also cleared my cache. This kinda defeats the purpose. Anything we can do about this? Or do we need to wait a while until the files get cleared from the server? Thoughts? --- Videoplasty (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Videoplasty: That's why I wrote "revdel the bigger versions" two levels up. Revision deletion would hide the bigger versions from public view (including you and me). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Perfect, thanks for the explanation! When that happens, this can be considered closed, as far as I'm concerned! -- Videoplasty (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Videoplasty: I was able to partially automate it by customizing an existing tool. Still had to press "yes" 265 times and had to wait 5-10 seconds between each "yes", but at least I didn't have to worry about selecting the right file. The revision deletion part has to be done by an administrator, who will hopefully visit this page soon. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:30, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Perfect, thanks for the explanation! When that happens, this can be considered closed, as far as I'm concerned! -- Videoplasty (talk) 10:14, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Videoplasty: That's why I wrote "revdel the bigger versions" two levels up. Revision deletion would hide the bigger versions from public view (including you and me). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
- Glad we have reached some form of mutual agreement! Thank you @Alexis Jazz: for doing this massive task (hopefully in there was an automated way to do it)! However - @Amada44, Jeff G., and Alexis Jazz: - on a quick look, it seems I can still access the high res original uploads. This can be done both on my Uploads page (where you preview each GIF and access the file that way) OR if you access any individual file in the File History tab. I tried this from a different browser where I'm not logged in, so it's not because I am the original uploader. I also cleared my cache. This kinda defeats the purpose. Anything we can do about this? Or do we need to wait a while until the files get cleared from the server? Thoughts? --- Videoplasty (talk) 06:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Keept all the files but reduced filesize of the gifs to 100px. --Amada44 talk to me 10:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Likely screenshot, derivative work Ytoyoda (talk) 16:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Copyright violation Investoa (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
File:Guilherme Gaensly - Reprodução de mapa meteorológico do Estado de São Paulo em 1902, Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpg
[edit]
The same image File:Guilherme Gaensly - Reprodução de mapa- "Meteorological Service Chart Showing The Mean Temperature, Barometric Pressure And The Rainfall For 1902 In The State Of S. Paulo Brazil", Acervo do Museu Paulista da USP.jpg Lucas.Belo (talk) 14:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Two same uploaded Bill Wong (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Same as File:Argos logo.svg, not used 23.237.58.12 23:09, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anezka.Pohlova as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: it's me on the picture and I don't like it, Jan Louzek can offer you better pics, this one is moreover old one JuTa 17:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: If you have a request, whatever it may be, for a photo where you are the subject, and in order for us to be sure that you are legitimate to make the request, please make your request by mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with an email address that we can identify as yours. If the request is legitimate one of our volunteers will restart a new discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Reopening. There is OTRS request from subject to delete the photo per courtesy. The photo is unused and we have more free photos of subject, so I Delete here. The request is delayed as an unrelated DR for this photo was pending. Ankry (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- Delete this and other pics, per Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Michaela Krausová. Has she hold any important office? Why not the pictures are used anywhere? This is promotion of a junior politician. IMHO, of course. --E4024 (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: To be honest I'm not sure what's the correct thing to do according to our policy but the person on the photo is a young Czech politician who doesn't like photos of her. Her identity has been confirmed via OTRS ticket 2018031910009453. Via her message on my talk page she offered the links to new photos of her from Flickr like [7] or [8] if we need any. --Podzemnik (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Anezka.Pohlova as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: it's me on the picture and I don't like it, Jan Louzek can offer you better pics, this one is moreover old one JuTa 17:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
![17:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/02/20#c-JuTa-2018-02-20T17:29:00.000Z-File:Míša"_Krausová_2012.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: If you have a request, whatever it may be, for a photo where you are the subject, and in order for us to be sure that you are legitimate to make the request, please make your request by mail to permissions-commonswikimedia.org with an email address that we can identify as yours. If the request is legitimate one of our volunteers will restart a new discussion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
![19:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2018/02/20#c-Christian_Ferrer-2018-03-01T19:44:00.000Z-File:Míša"_Krausová_2012.jpg){kind=link}
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mahakam_graphic_score.jpg Theonugraha (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
because i want to display two files Theonugraha (talk) 17:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: uploader request. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:54, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The file was uploaded by long-term vandal Bertrand101. 209.242.141.28 18:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio anyway. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Might not be PD, per Invaluable info: [9] , signed Estate of Anton Giulio Bragaglia DDupard (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Also not exactly neutral as a depiction of a writer --DDupard (talk) 11:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: I don't see why PD-Italy would not apply. --Jcb (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by DDupard as Speedy (speedydelete) and the most recent rationale was: Copyright violation: per Italian law makes an important distinction between "works of photographic art" and "simple photographs" (Art. 2, § 7). Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis), whereas simple photographs are protected for a period of 20 years from creation. The author/creator: Anton Giulio Bragaglia died in 1960 [10] . His works might enter the Public Domain 70 years after his death in 2030. Therefore license header is incorrect ; It is not PD Italy since it is "a work of photographic art". Needs one week discussion. Taivo (talk) 14:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Delete : It is misleading to say that it is PD Italy, since it is a work of "photographic art" (Art. 2, § 7) and that the author: Anton Giulio Bragaglia passed away in 1960: [11]; The law says that in the case of Photographs that are "intellectual work with creative characteristics" [they] are protected for 70 years after the author's death (Art. 32 bis). It means that there is here infringement of Copyright laws and that Wikimedia has to wait until 2030 to respect the law.--DDupard (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- If this is photographic art, then it is clearly copyright violation. But I am not sure, that this is photographic art, maybe simple photo. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Taivo; To understand better: on the Artnet site , for the entry 'Anton Giulio Bragaglia' (Italian, 1890–1960) : [12], among the "Artworks" listed/presented is the very image here discussed with the added mention that it was sold in May 2003. There is a wikipedia article on Bragaglia here [13], and various authorities about him as an artist, like RKD : [14], Moma : [15], Musée d'Orsay : [16], Delarge : [17], Luminous lint Photographer : [18], Christies : [19], Benezit Dictionary of artists :[20], New York Public Library: [21], Bridgeman: [22], Getty edu: [23] all related to the artistic field.--DDupard (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand, that he is an artist. Not everything done by artist is art. But if the photo is sold, then this is a strong argument. Taivo (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Taivo: Lot 128: ANTON GIULIO BRAGAGLIA (1889-1963), sold by Christie's, London, United kingdom, May 21, 2003. See here: [24].--DDupard (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- I understand, that he is an artist. Not everything done by artist is art. But if the photo is sold, then this is a strong argument. Taivo (talk) 06:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Taivo; To understand better: on the Artnet site , for the entry 'Anton Giulio Bragaglia' (Italian, 1890–1960) : [12], among the "Artworks" listed/presented is the very image here discussed with the added mention that it was sold in May 2003. There is a wikipedia article on Bragaglia here [13], and various authorities about him as an artist, like RKD : [14], Moma : [15], Musée d'Orsay : [16], Delarge : [17], Luminous lint Photographer : [18], Christies : [19], Benezit Dictionary of artists :[20], New York Public Library: [21], Bridgeman: [22], Getty edu: [23] all related to the artistic field.--DDupard (talk) 11:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- If this is photographic art, then it is clearly copyright violation. But I am not sure, that this is photographic art, maybe simple photo. Taivo (talk) 09:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, sold in auction, therefore photographic art. Can be restored after copyright expiring in 2034. Taivo (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
could i please delete this file as i created two files by mistake Theoriginalfrenchgemini (talk) 05:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Question: Elise, it's not clear to us what you want to be deleted: Your uploaded private photo album or your self-made artwork or both of it? --Achim (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: files already deleted. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
The file is managed as a public domain, but there´s not an OTRS permission and the official page of the band is not licenced under CC nor public domain (see supportlesbiens.cz). There´s a copyright symbol in the footer of the page. --Michal Lenc (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dubai International Airport
[edit]No freedom of panorama in the United Arab Emirates.
- File:2010 EP-MNO.jpg Kept, the plane is the main subject.
- File:21303838.jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 aile.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 duty free.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 egate (echecking of passport).jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 exterieur.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 hall d accueil (2).jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 hall d accueil.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 hall interieur.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 interieur apres securite.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 securite.jpg
- File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 tapis roulant.jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:Aeroprt de dubai terminal 3 arrivee.jpg
- File:Aeropuerto de Dubai8846.JPG
- File:Aeropuerto de Dubai8847.JPG
- File:Aeropuerto de Dubai8848.JPG
- File:Aeropuerto de Dubai8852.JPG
- File:AirportDubai DallmayrVending.jpg
- File:Arrivals at Dubai Airport 117.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport - May 2009 107.jpg
- File:Dubai airport - May 2009 119.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport 16.08.2009 05-18-10.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport 2009 203.jpg
- File:Dubai airport Apr 2010 water feature 1 OIC.jpg
- File:Dubai airport Apr 2010 water feature 2 OIC.jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:Dubai airport Apr 2010 water feature 3 OIC.jpg
- File:Dubai airport arrivals 123.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport Circa 1959 Model Pict 1.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport Circa 1959 Model Pict 2.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport Circa 1959 Model Pict 3.jpg
- File:Dubai airport DXB terminal 1 exposure and personality rights.jpg
- File:Dubai airport DXB terminal 1.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport July 09.jpg
- File:Dubai airport Mar 2011 decoration closeup.jpg
- File:Dubai airport Mar 2011 decoration.jpg
- File:Dubai airport Mar 2011 view inside terminal.jpg
- File:DUBAI Airport May 2009 106.jpg
- File:Dubai airport new terminal.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport2009 108.jpg
- File:Dubai International airport interior.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport Terminal 2 Check In Counters.jpg
- File:Dubaiairpordeparturesterminal3.jpg
- File:DubaiAirport317.JPG
- File:DubaiAirport319.JPG
- File:DubaiAirport320.JPG
- File:DubaiAirport321.JPG
- File:Dubaiairport45.jpg
- File:DXB - May 2009 109.jpg
- File:Dxb 176.jpg
- File:DXB 177.jpg
- File:DXB Concourse 3 Trip 2009 244.jpg
- File:DXB May 2009 111.jpg
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 1.jpg
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 10.jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 2.jpg
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 3.jpg
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 4.jpg
- File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 5.jpg Kept, nothing to copyright.
- File:DXB.jpg
- File:Dxb2 - May 2009 114.jpg
- File:Emirates T3 DXB.JPG
- File:Emirates' operations at Dubai International Airport, consisting mainly of Boeing 777.jpg
- File:IDubai international - May 2009 103.jpg
- File:Islamabad Trip - May 2009 126.jpg
- File:Terminal 1 DXB Trip 2009 219.jpg
- File:Terminal1view.jpg
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Stefan4 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Can you please point out for each image what is exactly copyrightable and thus not covered by FOP? Multichill (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed - 6 of my images are here (Dubai airport Apr 2010 & Mar 2011) and 4 are simply happy snaps at the airport (2 are of a specific ceiling decoration which as an artwork may be copyrightable). I don't think "no FOP" means "no images of the country can be posted at all". That being said if my understanding of the copyright situation is incorrect, I won't fight their removal. Orderinchaos (talk) 03:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I clicked a number of photos, and I couldn't find anything that was copyrightable. Keep. --FA2010 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- The images show the interior or exterior of a copyrighted building, and the building is also the main purpose of the images. You can't upload photos of buildings in the United Arab Emirates unless you can show that the architect died before 1962. However, File:DXB on 23 September 2007 Pict 5.jpg, File:Dubai airport Apr 2010 water feature 2 OIC.jpg, File:Aeroport de dubai terminal 3 tapis roulant.jpg and File:21303838.jpg look like mistakes. Also, File:DXB Concourse 3 Trip 2009 244.jpg may be OK: you see very little of the buildings and the few things you see might not be copyrightable. --Stefan4 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
- I tagged as Kept a few files where there is nothing to copyright. The rest should probably be deleted. Yann (talk) 12:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Per Yann . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 12:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Dubai International Airport
[edit]No FOP in the UAE
- File:3am, Dubai Airport.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN0534862.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1154894.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1211308.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1312003.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1428535.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1444517.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1444518.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1471704.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1476162.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1620810.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN1629113.jpg
- File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN2079514.jpg
- File:Dubai Airport (4240248066).jpg
- File:Dubai Airport (6536975931).jpg
- File:Dubai Airport - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dubai airport 2.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport 2012 مطار دبي الدولي - panoramio (1).jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport 2012 مطار دبي الدولي - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport Duty Free Shops.JPG
- File:Dubai international airport Gate 213 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport inside.jpg
- File:Dubai international airport T2 - panoramio.jpg
- File:Dubai International Airport Winston smoking room inside.JPG
- File:Dubai International Airport Winston smoking room outside.JPG
- File:Dubai Metro...opening in 2009 (3337137335).jpg
- File:Dubai. Aeropuerto - panoramio.jpg
- File:DXB Terminal 3 waterfalls.jpg
- File:Emirates Air greeting at T3 (3344510264).jpg
- File:Interior view of T3,Dubai International Airport - panoramio.jpg
- File:Lascar Dubai International Airport (duty free area shown) (4608280414).jpg
- File:Terminal da Emirates (4128578773).jpg
- File:Time planner. The airport is like a mall. (5270755010).jpg
- File:What's the obsession with really long escalators? (3344510378).jpg
- File:World Trip 2005- Dubai International Airport, United Arab Emirates (9978881603).jpg
- File:تعريف بمجلة كادر لموظفين المطار.jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 (Dubai International Airport) - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo) (1).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 (Dubai International Airport) - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo) (2).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 (Dubai International Airport) - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo) (3).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 (Dubai International Airport) - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo) (5).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 (Dubai International Airport) - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 - panoramio.jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 맥도날드 - panoramio.jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 면세점 - panoramio - 우한길(HK Woo).jpg
- File:두바이 국제공항 면세점 - panoramio.jpg
_AN0534862.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1154894.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1211308.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1312003.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1428535.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1444517.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1444518.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1471704.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1476162.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1620810.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN1629113.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_AN2079514.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_(4608280414).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%EC%9A%B0%ED%95%9C%EA%B8%B8(HK_Woo)_(1).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%EC%9A%B0%ED%95%9C%EA%B8%B8(HK_Woo)_(2).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%EC%9A%B0%ED%95%9C%EA%B8%B8(HK_Woo)_(3).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%EC%9A%B0%ED%95%9C%EA%B8%B8(HK_Woo)_(5).jpg){kind=link}
_-_panoramio_-_%EC%9A%B0%ED%95%9C%EA%B8%B8(HK_Woo).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Elisfkc (talk) 01:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Most, if not all, of interior shots. File:Dubai - International (DXB - OMDB) AN0534862.jpg this image shows people and shops, with some walkways. The focus is not on the building design. --Fæ (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Those interior designs are still architectural works. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I am unsure of the point you are making. COM:DM is all about the focus, not whether any possible copyrighted work may be somewhere in a photo. --Fæ (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- The focus on the picture you stated is on the overall design and structure of the building. The people and shops are not the focus of the image, but rather the building that they are inside. --Elisfkc (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Those interior designs are still architectural works. --Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; I've been conservative, but kept few where there is no airport structure. Ruthven (msg) 19:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Derivative work of a logo. Does the logo reach the threshold of originality? The logo is used with fair use license in English Wikipedia. SlowManifesto (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: In my opinion, the nominated work is below COM:TOO. You can see that more complex logos such as File:Best Western logo.svg and File:Avenue of the Saints logo.svg are considered below TOO, too. However, why is it used with fair use in EN WP? --Mhhossein talk 16:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per Mhhossein. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
The music used in this video is licensed under a noncommercial license [25][26]. The video can be re-uploaded without sound, but the current version must be deleted. ℯxplicit 02:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Uploaded without sound. --Sporti (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I deleted the first version. However, in several places the video spends time on copyrighted sculptures and therefore infringes on the sculptors' copyrights. It may also infringe on architects' copyrights, although I didn't see any modern buildings that were not de minimis. Sporti, I suggest you edit out the sculptures -- Admins, we should give Sporti a few days to do that. . Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 10:55, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have uploaded four segments with no FOP issues as far as I can tell:
Deleted: per nomination and upload of non-FOP videos. --Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Photo by Keven Menard. permission from photographer to be sent via COM:OTRS. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:45, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- The author isn't Keven Menard - the name was programmed into the camera by its previous owner and was never replaced, hence its presence in the metadata. --Atchom (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Atchom: Perhaps the best way to demonstrate that you are the photographer/owner would be to take another photo using the same camera of a note or sign with text given by another user? RA0808 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I would be willing to do this if that's acceptable to everyone. Would you be willing to write a sentence?
- In addition, this picture hasn't been published before and no one is claiming infringement. I don't quite see why a name in the metadata is sufficent to claim copyright infringement. --Atchom (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Atchom: This is a case of erring on the side of caution. As for making the sign I don't know if it's a sure-fire thing but it couldn't hurt to try. How about taking a picture with the same camera of a sign/note reading:
- The abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power
- 04-13-30-47-55
- Today's date is: <DATE>
- and uploading it here to Commons? Then other editors can compare the metadata to see if the same information shows up. RA0808 (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- @Atchom: This is a case of erring on the side of caution. As for making the sign I don't know if it's a sure-fire thing but it couldn't hurt to try. How about taking a picture with the same camera of a sign/note reading:
- @Atchom: Perhaps the best way to demonstrate that you are the photographer/owner would be to take another photo using the same camera of a note or sign with text given by another user? RA0808 (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, I think it's fair to say that there is no proof forthcoming since it has been almost a month. Recommend delete per COM:PCP. RA0808 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and last comment by RA0808. --Green Giant (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Wnme as Speedy (SD) and the most recent rationale was: Wish by shown person via OTRS --Wnme 11:09, 20 February 2018 (UTC) I am uncomfortable with deleting the photo. We had OTRS-permission for the photo and now depicted person wants to delete it, again through OTRS. This is the only photo about depicted person we have. Taivo (talk) 11:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I have no access to the permission Ticket:2009022310012352, but in my point of view we should respect the claim of personalty rights in Ticket:2018012975000155. Unfortunately we couldn't discuss the content of the e-mail on this public page. --Wnme 11:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- So, what's the problem? There is proper agreement on OTRS... Polimerek (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I've no access to OTRS theretofore I can't read the ticket, however if the image was taken in a private space and if the subject ask now the deletion then we should delete it IMO. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Neutral It seems as if the photo has been made by his wife and sent by himself to OTRS. It would be nice if somebody with access to the pl-OTRS queue and/or User:Polimerek who did the actual upload could comment on this. --Reinhard Kraasch (talk) 09:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. - the picture was sent to us in 2009 by depicted person --Jcb (talk) 22:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
Files in Category:Train timetables in Japan
[edit]Copyright timetables. No evidence that the uploader has permission to reproduce them here.
- File:JR-Kyushu-timeT.B.JPG
- File:新幹線 2010 時刻表 (4623623905).jpg
- File:時刻表 (26257504820).jpg
- File:時刻表 (26504408086).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
DAJF (talk) 03:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep all. They are simple frequent layout (not decorative). Timetables = 著作権法第10条 "事実の伝達にすぎない雑報".
Moreover, They are not "current timetable". They don't have the value as "practical timetable". Simply, "historical data". --Benzoyl (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2018 (UTC) - Also, File:JR-Kyushu-timeT.B.JPG and File:新幹線 2010 時刻表 (4623623905).jpg are "part of timetable" (Not the whole). --Benzoyl (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
「『時刻表』の複写は、どこまでをひとつの著作物と見るか」ということですが、時刻表そのものに創作性はありません。しかし、編集する際に創作性が出てくる可能性もあり、『時刻表』に著作権があるかどうか難しいところです。ここは見方を変えて『時刻表』を定期刊行物と捉えると、次の号が出れば複写が可能となります。
講師 日本図書館協会参与，ＪＬＡ著作権委員会委員 酒川玲子氏
http://web.archive.org/web/20051124192803/http://www.lib.pref.yamanashi.jp/tosyokan/librarian/kenshukai/H16sankouto2.html
--Benzoyl (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
著作物でないもの ② 電話番号簿、列車時刻表 - 社団法人私立大学情報教育協会
--Benzoyl (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
- Neutral (I'm sorry to post on Japanese) 「編集する際に創作性が出てくる可能性もあり」という一文を無視していませんか？ 時刻表の読み方をそれほど知らないので何とも言えませんが、File:新幹線 2010 時刻表 (4623623905).jpgでは、「こだま」「のぞみ」「ひかり」の3つの車両種別を色で分けて視認性を向上させる工夫が行われています。ただ、通過する駅は「ﾚ」で示すとか、運行区間でない箇所は「・・」とするなどの規則は、ほとんどの時刻表で統一され、実際問題、時刻表に創作性が入り込む余地は小さいのかもしれません。なお、JLAのページを参考になさっているようですが、多くの日本の図書館は公判闘争を回避するために、著作権法第31条の制限規定により、時刻表全部の複写を認めていないことは、合わせて言い添えておきます。--Kkairri (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Delete the 4th file which contains more than a table - a picture and an advertisement. I'm torn about the 3rd - although it does contain some textual messages on the left, they look quite simple, factual statements. I don't see much reason to keep it, however. Perhaps someone can obfuscate the page on the left, if they want to keep it. Keep Images 1 and 2 - I'm pretty sure the their subjects are not copyrightable. There is an argument against copying timetables in their entirety or a significant portion of it anyway, but I don't think it applies here - I believe it typically concerns the copying of timetables in the form of a book (typically with hundreds pages like these) in their entirety, and one-page tables with no or little other kinds of contents are unlikely to be affected. whym (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
- @ Kkairri さん……百科事典の項目や地図（住宅地図など）と混同されてないでしょうか。。
１冊の半分 = Half of the total pages --Benzoyl (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
時刻表 １冊の半分以下 著作権法第31条（編集著作権あり） JTBの回答あり - 西東京市図書館における複写許可内容一覧表
時刻表：1冊の半分以下（著作物に該当しないとの解釈もある） - 国公私立大学図書館協力委員会 大学図書館著作権検討委員会
百科事典は1項目の半分以下、時刻表・職業別電話帳は1冊の半分以下（時刻表は著作物ではないという見解もあります） - 埼玉県立総合教育センター
- 「1冊の半分」というのは、「本当は無許諾複製は著作権法違反なんだけど、図書館の目的を踏まえ、『調査研究の用に供するために』『公表された著作物の一部分（時刻表の場合は1冊の半分）』を使うならまあ許すよ」、という話であって、調査研究から離れた目的での頒布・公開は違法となります。それは同法第49条にしっかりと書かれています。
第四十九条 次に掲げる者は、第二十一条の複製を行つたものとみなす。
一 （中略）第三十一条第一項第一号（中略）に定める目的以外の目的のために、これらの規定の適用を受けて作成された著作物の複製物（次項第四号の複製物に該当するものを除く。）を頒布し、又は当該複製物によつて当該著作物を公衆に提示した者
- なお、私が、「著作権法第31条の制限規定により、時刻表全部の複写を認めていない」と書いたのは、日本の図書館の殆どは時刻表を著作物として見做していることを説明するためのものです。そもそも著作物でないのなら著作権法自体が適用されないので、時刻表の全部を複写することができるのですから……。--Kkairri (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment Reason for judgment of this deletion request.
- 1.駅構内の時刻表やそれらに類するもの
- 著作権法第2条では著作物の定義として『思想又は感情を創作的に表現したもの』としています。駅構内の時刻表などにはこの様な著者の思想又は感情は含まれておらず、また、休日ダイヤや列車の等級、行先や編成によって表示の色を変えたり記号を付けるなどして視認性の向上を図るものは各所で一般的に見られるものです。「ﾚ」や「・・」に関しても同様でしょう。そして、千野直邦、尾中普子(著)「5訂版 著作権法の解説」（2005年1月 一橋出版発行）6頁には、著作物性を否定した判例として『駅構内に掲示された列車時刻表や料金表（東京地判昭和六・七・二四 新聞三三０三号八頁）』の記載もあります。これらに対して駅構内の時刻表に著作物性を認めた判例は私の調べたところ見つかりませんでした。以上により駅の時刻表や１つの列車の運行時刻表には著作物性は現状では認められないでしょう。
- 2.編集著作物としての時刻表
- 著作権法第12条では編集著作物の定義として『編集物でその素材の選択又は配列によつて創作性を有するもの』としています。素材の選択か素材の配列が創作性に対する要件となっており、単に編集物であるからといっても、アルファベット順や昇順や降順に並べただけのものや、単なる機械的な寄せ集め、誰が作成しても同様になるであろうものの著作物性は認められません（例：リストの著作物性を否定した判例 松本清張作品リスト事件）（例2：職業を1800項目に分類し、これに類するものがあるとは認められないことから肯定した判例 タウンページ事件）。各社の出版する時刻表について考察すると、「素材の選択」については余程小さな時刻表でもない限り、運行車両の選択は無くその路線で運行する客車を網羅しているものと思われますので、創作性はほとんどないものと思われます。一方、「素材の配列」については単に運行時間順に並べただけでは創作性はないものと思われますが、各社により路線の順番などの掲載順が異なっており、また、列車の配列により乗り換え等が見やすくなる様並べたり、運賃だけで乗車可能な列車と有料特急を見分ける為の工夫などは創作性が見られるため、タウンページ事件よりははるかに劣るのですが、全体としては編集著作物に該当するでしょう。何処までの再生が編集著作物としての侵害に当たるのかは、状況によって異なるのですが、時刻表においてこれを判断した判例は否定も肯定も見つけられませんでした。しかしながら、CommonsではCommons:プロジェクト基準/予防原則を公式方針としておりますので、これに従い一部分の記載の再生であっても削除が妥当でしょう。
- File:JR-Kyushu-timeT.B.JPG 2に付き削除
- File:新幹線 2010 時刻表 (4623623905).jpg 2に付き削除
- File:時刻表 (26257504820).jpg 1に付き存続。※列車のアイコンが有りますが、De minimisと判断
- File:時刻表 (26504408086).jpg 1に付き存続。※特急「はるか」の写真が有りますが、De minimisと判断
Deleted: Based on Japanese copyright law, past judicial precedents and Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. --Y.haruo (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)