Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2018/08/10
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
Other videos by this channel are in face CC-BY, but this one doesn't appear to be so. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
DeleteUgh, they didn't use free license music. The song they start using around the 11 minute mark is copyrighted. It's fairly generic footage of people skateboarding spliced in with some talking head, so I'm not going to bother cutting it out. --Vera (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Vera (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-free image MiguelAlanCS (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 09:08, 10 August 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: https://radiochips.blogspot.com/2017/04/ --Krdbot 13:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Probable copyvio. Same image appears online as early as 2007 e.g. http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2007/09/20/neurociencia/1190279754.html Bri (talk) 02:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 09:08, 10 August 2018 UTC: Copyright violation: http://www.elmundo.es/elmundosalud/2007/09/20/neurociencia/1190279754.html --Krdbot 13:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
It seems that the person on the photo complained, but that should be asserted somehow. grin ✎ 10:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Support deletion -- grin ✎ 11:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)- If this is the same person as en:Diane Tell, it would be in scope. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment She has wrote in as I suggested - 2018081010000816 - I'll ask for ID. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- ID confirmed. I will delete the image as "no permission from subject"Ronhjones (Talk) 21:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 21:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I upload quality photo similar to this image Dushanmadhuka (talk) 12:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by EugeneZelenko at 14:56, 10 August 2018 UTC: Commons:Licensing: non-trivial logo - --Krdbot 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Previously published at http://nationalradiohalloffame.com/rick_dees.htm Ytoyoda (talk) 16:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Obvious copyvios may use {{Copyvio}}. --Эlcobbola talk 20:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know if this is the same as the previously deleted image but this is identical to the image published at https://rick.com/category/sleaze/ Adeletron 3030 (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: redeleted, same photo previously deleted. --Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Similar to https://m.blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=loveme1027&logNo=220879713948&categoryNo=68&proxyReferer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - see also Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by 상진과 찬호. --Эlcobbola talk 23:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, low-re image, unlikely to be own work.
Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - clear COM:NETCOPYVIO; File:조현민.jpg is here; File:조양호.jpg is here; etc. --Эlcobbola talk 23:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
I accidentally uploaded this file thinking it was Creative Commons, as some videos by Wikitongues are released under that license. Sir Beluga (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 21:01, 10 August 2018 UTC: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ossetian language (Wikitongues).ogg: I accidentally uploaded this file thinking it was Creative Commons, as some videos by Wikitongues are released under that license. --Krdbot 01:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Reproduction of a 2D work apparently by a local school. GMGtalk 16:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Túrelio at 20:54, 10 August 2018 UTC: Per deletion request, despite USGOV embassy upload on Flickr --Krdbot 01:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 4nn1l2 as no permission (No permission since). EXIF has some information about copyright. OTRS doesn't match with the same. Ticket:2018080110003929 ✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 17:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Ronhjones at 19:22, 10 August 2018 UTC: Previously deleted file File:Salvador Dali q.jpg --Krdbot 01:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Similar to https://soulaymanealaoui.wordpress.com/2017/01/11/soulaymane-alaoui-biographie/ Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Elcobbola at 20:33, 10 August 2018 UTC: Failed license review; non-free license (F4) - --Krdbot 01:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONyCS1ri4ZM Tarawa 
(jo ta ke irabazi arte) 21:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Tarawa1943: No tiene derecho,porque la imagen es creative commons — Preceding unsigned comment added by W2288 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Tarawa1943: that video has a Creative Commons license. I don't really trust the channel though. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Valid YouTube CC-BY llicense. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
On discussion on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Cookie Anna (Cookie) (talk) 15:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- After running into another clear cases of laundering, I created a mass DR for all files from this channel (including this one, to keep discussion central): Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"UCmCnA Xl0Rz4rWoFRxeHO8Q". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: See Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"UCmCnA Xl0Rz4rWoFRxeHO8Q". --Эlcobbola talk 15:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Sock upload, and I don't trust it.
I already wasted too much time on checking uploads from this sock, reporting them and ignoring their insults so the above rationale is more than sufficient. I refuse to argue over it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Valid YouTube CC-BY license. --Anna (Cookie) (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
On discussion on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Cookie Anna (Cookie) (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- After running into another clear cases of laundering, I created a mass DR for all files from this channel (including this one, to keep discussion central): Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with insource:"UCmCnA Xl0Rz4rWoFRxeHO8Q". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: This does not appear to be an official channel. 1) The comment "of fans for Disney fans" is damning; 2) Disney News Latino has no social media verification checks (for example, Twitter and Facebook). Legitimate Disney does have verification checks for each of its "sub-groups" (Facebook - [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.; Twitter: [6], [7], [8], [9], etc.), including regional/linguistic sub-groups (e.g., Disney Channel Latinoamérica - Facebook and Twitter); and 3) relatedly, I can find no official Disney site linking to this YouTube channel. Deleted per COM:PRP. --Эlcobbola talk 20:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
der protagonist ist nicht zufrieden damit, und ich habe ein neues foto von ihm in vorbereitung. Maximilian (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- in english: the protagonist was not pleased with this portrait of himself. that‘s why i just took a new photo. pls delete this one asap. Maximilian (talk) 12:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Much better image available: File:Christian Floto – 2018.jpg. --Raymond 12:28, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This gallery was created accidentally, when using the Vicuña uploader. Kulmalukko (talk) 07:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --INeverCry 23:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This page should be deleted, because it was created accidentally by the VicuñaUploader. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested deletion in own userspace. --Achim (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Unnecessary page created automatically by VicuñaUploader. Kulmalukko (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: User requested deletion in own userspace. --Achim (talk) 19:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
This does seem to be an original photo. Unfortunately the majority of the work consists of the presumably copyrighted backdrop that it is likely problematic. GMGtalk 16:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted by Ronhjones at 20:01, 11 August 2018 UTC: Previously deleted file --Krdbot 01:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no compelling need to subdivide Category:Shops in Hualien into township categories.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: empty cat. --JuTa 11:42, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Promotional content, out of project scope. Achim (talk) 07:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Info: Page User:Rajivness had already been deleted on 11 Feb 2018 per "Out of project scope: promotional content" as well as en:User:Rajivness on 22 Mar 2018. --Achim (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Wikimedia Commons does not exist to promote your career. --Green Giant (talk) 00:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Desrespeito a uma religião. Trata-se de um objeto de devoção e deve ser preservado. Não é permitido fotografar ou divulgar essa imagem. É lamentável encontrá-la exposta na internet. É uma falta de respeito. Baliharafly (talk) 03:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion given. File is in use. INeverCry 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Soka Gakkai do not allow this Myjak rasmussen (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Keep no reason for delete. --Ralf Roleček 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. Transcription of work by "13th-century Japanese priest Nichiren" according to accompanying en:wiki. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
delete:The uploader “Crazysigns” neither is the real author of this image nor owns its copyright. This particular style of Gohonzon is published and used solely by the Buddhist organization Soka Gakkai International, which has the sole right and ability to reproduce it using a sacred woodblock. This specific style of Gohonzon was first published in 1993 by SGI, and its copyright is still in effect. SGI has never given any permission to post the image of Gohonzon to neither Crazysigns nor Wikimedia Commons; therefore, the image of Gohonzon needs to be deleted since SGI’s copyright has been violated 63.175.16.9 17:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. This in turn would mean that it’s not a Gohonzon by 26th High Priest Nichikan (1665–1726)? So it’s a hoax?? Interesting stuff! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.130.198.116 (talk) 19:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept, I do not believe, that SGI has sole right to reproduce the letter, because its copyright has expired, and I do not believe, that SGI has sole ability to reproduce it. If you claim, that it is work of SGI, then this makes the image a hoax, but it is used nevertheless in multiple projects. No strong evidence for recent work has been given, only indirect hints. Conclusion: evidence for copyright violation is weak, probably the work is very old. Taivo (talk) 10:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Photo by Noam Galai/Getty Images for TechCrunch Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, It is unlikely that the author approves the Flickr's license. --Y.haruo (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo-album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Patrick Rogel as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: © Musée-Archives-Bibliothèque- Grande Loge de France Ronhjones (Talk) 15:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- There appears to have been some discussion User_talk:Guise#File:Forces_occultes.jpg, about the PD license. My view is that PD-1996 is not valid as it cannot be PD in home country in 1996. Therefore I suspect copyright was restored, and is PD in US on 1st Jan 2039. Ronhjones (Talk) 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
File:Ils donnent leur sang. Donnez votre travail pour sauver l'Europe du Bolchévisme - affiche.jpg
[edit]http://museedelaresistanceenligne.org/media6529-Affiche-de-propagande-Ils-donnent-leur-sang, https://www.agefotostock.com/age/en/Stock-Images/Rights-Managed/B21-2437059 Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Needs a US licence. With a creation date of 1943, then the US copyright will be restored at URAA in 1996, so out of copyright on 1st Jan 2039. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: URAA can't be the sole reason for deletion. --Yann (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Photo clearly has a copyright watermark on it. Ttyrtle (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Photo uploaded by accident. This is not tommy Robinson and thus puts this person into negative respiuteas Timmy Robinson is hated by many. Please delete ASAP RahulShah123 (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: procedural close, already deleted. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Ensayo personal; fuera del alcance del proyecto. Véase Commons:Alcance del proyecto#Formatos PDF y DjVu Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Personal essay; out of scope. See Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
It is not filiformis. Plant is too large for filiformis and filiformis does not have spines in the flowerhead. This plant is probably L. longifolia 52.64.219.10 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: Bad ID is only a reason to rename and recategorize, not delete. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mpdmasterclass (talk · contribs)
[edit]Commons is not a place to advertise.
ℯxplicit 04:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Only used on the user's talk page for promotion of the subject, which I have removed. Out of project scope. ℯxplicit 04:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Out of scope, unused image of a person. Formerly in w:User:Mordecai Njoroge. —Cryptic (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
unused photograph of a non-notable person Saqib (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Non-free image, not uploaded by copyright owner. Original photograph published on petionville.com, see archived page from 2005. Copyright holder requests deletion via OTRS #2018080810001187. Yunshui (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
COM:PENIS: low quality 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Incomprehensible nonsense. Out of project scope: COM:SCOPE. At least one previous copy (File:SLAVE TECHNOLOGY THE LUCIFERIAN DOCTRINE MY .FEMALE SLAVE.pdf) has already been deleted as "nonsense". PCock (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Also:
- File:The Luciferian Doctrine, I survived through The Apocalypse.pdf
- File:The Luciferian Doctrine.pdf
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ThomasPA34 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I strongly doubt these images are own work given the lack of EXIF, the size, the professionnal quality, the subject and the copyvio record of the uploader.
- File:Index leslie grossman ahs.jpg
- File:4785.800 volpaiute port aventura park spain.jpg
- File:Wild buffalos02 port aventura.jpg
- File:Stampida port aventura overview.jpg
- File:Les Thrill Towers et Red Force vus de loin.jpg
- File:Maison enzo ferrari land.png
- File:Scala de milan ferrari land.png
- File:Ferrari land palazzo vecchio.png
- File:Colisée ferrari land 2018.png
- File:Panoramique shambhala et dragon khan port aventura.png
- File:Arche d'entrée pa zone mexicaine.jpg
- File:Hurakan-condor port aventura.jpg
- File:Red force et thrill towers.jpg
- File:Flying race.jpg
- File:Champions race.jpg
- File:Crazy pistons.jpg
- File:Kid's tower.jpg
- File:Junior red force.jpg
- File:FerrariLandGallery2.jpg
- File:FlyingDreams.jpg
- File:Racing legends ferrari land.jpg
- File:Ferrari-Land Ferrari-Experience-a.jpg
- File:Pit stop record ferrari land.jpg
- File:Crazy Barrels port aventura.jpg
- File:TAMI tami port aventura.jpg
- File:Portaventura entrée.png
BrightRaven (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: I have already deleted images that were obvious copyvios (found on Google Images). BrightRaven (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear authorship. BrightRaven (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ThomasPA34 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images all appear in Expedia hotel descriptions, see https://www.expedia.co.uk/Costa-Daurada-Hotels-PortAventura-Hotel-El-Paso-Theme-Park-Tickets-Included.h892513.Hotel-Information
Ytoyoda (talk) 06:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: speedy deletion: clear copyvio (several Google hits for each picture). --BrightRaven (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by ThomasPA34 (talk · contribs)
[edit]I strongly doubt this image is own work given the lack of EXIF, and the copyvio record of the uploader.
- File:Pa park 2018.png
- File:Ferrari land gallery.png
- File:Racing legends fl.png
- File:Junior rf.png
- File:Aire de jeux fl.png
- File:Pole position fl.png
- File:Attraction fl.png
- File:Maranello grand race.png
- File:Ferrari experience façade.png
BrightRaven (talk) 08:26, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
File:Morgan Stanley offices, Washington DC - Obama poster, It's a shame - changeAIDSobama.org.jpg
[edit]No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Blatant spam jdx Re: 14:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- File:Raise Issue - We listen.png
- File:Raise Issue - We Resolve.png
- File:Raise Issue - We work.png
- Category:Raise Issue - Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/08/Category:Raise Issue
Screenshot of corporate website showing copyrighted photo with no attempt at explanation of copyright license. -- Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Facebook Family (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo-album. Not used. Also Commons:Derivative work from other photos.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Unidossomosvzla (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manrajchauhan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of scope - unused personal images
lNeverCry 20:56, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Christian Ferrer (talk) 22:18, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Manrajchauhan (talk · contribs)
[edit]Although we permit users to upload a small number of personal photos, this is contingent on those users making some useful contributions. Both of these photos have only adorned the uploader’s userpage, whilst the user has not made any real contribution beyond their own userspace.
Green Giant (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Seems to be some sort of meme image which seeks to present an incorrect view of the left-right political spectrum for obvious propaganda purposes. I suspected plagiarism, and Tin Eye does find copies of it elsewhere, although it is not clear who owns it. It may or may not really be the uploader's own work. Even if it is it needs to go. DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Justin4909 (talk · contribs)
[edit]- File:2 Australian dollars in 1988 Reverse.jpg
- File:2 Australian dollars in 1988 Obverse.jpg
- File:1 Australian dollar in 1984 Reverse.jpg
- File:1 Australian dollar in 1984 Obverse.jpg
- File:50 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse Circular.jpg
- File:50 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse Circular.jpg
- File:20 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse.jpg
- File:20 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse.jpg
- File:10 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse.jpg
- File:10 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse.jpg
- File:5 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse.jpg
- File:5 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse.jpg
- File:2 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse.jpg
- File:2 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse.jpg
- File:1 Australian cent in 1966 Obverse.jpg
- File:1 Australian cent in 1966 Reverse.jpg
- File:50 Australian cents in 1983 Obverse Dodecagon.jpg
- File:50 Australian cents in 1983 Reverse Dodecagon.jpg
Ronhjones (Talk) 22:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: files already deleted. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:00, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Files found with Special:Search/laremix
[edit]@Leoboudv: "Video oficial de LAREMIX.TV Copyright © 2009-2018 LA Remix.tv Los Angeles Remix, All Rights Reserved."
- File:Christian Nodal entrevista.jpg
- File:Christian Nodal entrevista 4.jpg
- File:Christian Nodal rueda de prens.jpg
- File:Christian Nodal disco de platino.jpg
- File:Christian Nodal entrevista 3.jpg
- File:Christian Nodal entrevista 2.jpg
- File:Rafael Amaya anuncia que roberto tapia estara en el senor de los cielos 2.png
- File:Rafael Amaya anuncia que roberto tapia estara en el senor de los cielos.png
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Neither Daphne nor I knew this. --Leoboudv (talk) 03:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Image has no encyclopedic value Happyme22 (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Keep, were it Woodrow Wilson instead of Obama, it would certainly be encyclopaedic. Doesn't seem to be -cruft. Sherurcij (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_вул._Кардинала_Сліпого,_7.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- I'm not understanding the Woodrow Wilson analogy. It shows President Bush being carryed out on Obama's back in a cloth sac -- where could this possibly be used in proper context to display an event? It can't. It's satirical and of no value to an encyclopedia. Happyme22 (talk) 00:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ten years from now, when we know it's not pure -cruft, I could easily see it being used to illustrate the wave of unpopularity on which Bush left office in his article, that Obama took office largely because of the ill-fated Bush administration in his article, or that the 2008 United States election article uses it to demonstrate how many issues surrounded Obama portraying himself as an "anti-Bush" following an unpopular two-term presidency. Sherurcij (talk) 21:15, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- We should not judge what goes into a Wikipedia article based on what may happen in the future. The Wikimedia project is not a crystal ball. This cannot be used in an article to provide the reader with helpful visual information, period. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The Commons hosts many satirical caricatures from all stages of history, including grossly racist Jim Crow images and antisemitic images. The only ones that ever get objected to as "unencyclopedic" are those satirizing the US and Israel: this is simple censorship and the Commons is not censored. --Simonxag (talk) 11:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, that seems to be your opinion. I understand that Commons is not censored, but allow me to ask you a question: can you think of one article where this image, one of the president-elect carrying the president of the United States in a sac on his back while he is crying, would help a reader to actually comprehend and better understand what the text of said article is saying? That is what images do, after all. I can't think of one, which simply goes to support the crux of my argument, that this image is of no value and cannot accurately portray world events. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The image might easily be used to illustrate the utter contempt with which Bush is held at the end of his presidency. This is surely the most remarkable thing about the the career of someone who was no more incompetent or a warmonger than some I could mention. It also illustrates well the positive feelings about the beginning of the Obama presidency. Also please remember that the Commons is not just for the Wikipedia, but for all current and possible Wiki projects. (Think of media and history courses on the Wikiversity.) Try using more imagination when judging the potential uses of an image: keeping an image does not enforce its use, but removing one permanently and totally prohibits it. --Simonxag (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Shows relative popularity of George W. Bush vs. Barack Obama among at least some Belgians and therefore has encyclopedic value.Mtsmallwood (talk) 00:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
This file was tagged for Speedy Delete by B dash as Copyvio (copyvio) and the rationale was: Online comic, not own work. This file was previously reviewed at COM:Deletion requests/File:Obama Bush Schoovaerts-Mahin.jpg (above) and the decision was Keep, however that DR concerned encyclopedic value, not copyright status. Therefore, I've changed to DR instead of SD. – JGHowes talk 16:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I suppose Mr Schoovaerts, our illustrator, has taken a previous model for a cartoon which was actually only destined to a small diffusion magazine in Walloon language, Li Rantoele. The original thing in it is the Walloon adaptation of text, that was mine. If deleted here, it could maybe be kept for that sake on Waloon wiki.
- --Lucyin (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Pepe the Frog is part of the sign and therefore (one of) the main focus(es) of this imagesince it is intentionally included/framedin the shot; therefore not de minimis to this image. The copyright for the derivative, as well as the copyright for the original Pepe is protected in the US, --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 23:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep I disagree with op that the main focus of this image is Pepe the frog. The main focus is the man holding the sign, and Pepe is just a small part of that sign, so I think Commons:De minimis should apply here. FallingGravity (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
- COM:De minimis does not equal to "it is a small part of the image", but raher "was it included on purpose or not", and would the same meaning be conveyed if removed. I'd argue that it is clearly intentionally framed to be included in the shot, and therefore it is not de minimis. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Kept: Incidental feature, it is likely to be considered de minimis. The exact same photo could have been taken withouth this feature. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
Pepe is key part of the photo, COM:DM doesn't apply. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 02:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- KeepThe claim that Pepe the Frog is "a key part of the photo" is, speaking frankly, an argument which seems to have been brought up simply to get the picture deleted, and may be connected to the attempt to get the photo removed from . (An RfC deteremined that it would be kept). It's obvious to anyone that the subject of the photograph is an alt-right pro-Trump supporter holding a sign which says "Deplorables and Alt-Right Unite". The frog is clearly de minimis in the context of the entire photo, which could have the frog removed and still have the exact same meaning. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not de minimis when several wikis were using this photo to illustrate that frog character. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The ex post facto use of the photo for that purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with determing de minimis, which is about intrinsic characteristics, not extrinsic usage. If those wikis are using it inappropriately, the photo should be removed from the wikis, and not deleted from Commons. The photograph exists as is, and should be judged for what it is, not for what use people might do with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of course it has everything to do with it. If people find this photo useful to illustrate the frog without using CSS to crop it on the wiki or giving strange instructions ("to see batman, click the image, go to more details, click the image again, zoom in on the comic book sticking out of the bag of the guy on the left") it apparently shows the frog in some way that can't be considered negligible. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The ex post facto use of the photo for that purpose has nothing whatsoever to do with determing de minimis, which is about intrinsic characteristics, not extrinsic usage. If those wikis are using it inappropriately, the photo should be removed from the wikis, and not deleted from Commons. The photograph exists as is, and should be judged for what it is, not for what use people might do with it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- User:Beyond My Kens comment doesn't seem like justification for you to photoshop the character completely out of the image. The file should be deleted instead of being selectively edited. Removing a significant portion of the poster, de minimis or not, is a major change and seems to violate Commons:Overwriting existing files. 93 (talk) 05:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not de minimis when several wikis were using this photo to illustrate that frog character. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment — A photoshopped version of this photograph has recently been uploaded in an apparent Orwellian attempt to remove all references to Pepe the Frog. FallingGravity (talk) 05:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment – No opinion on the copyright issue, but the censored version should absolutely not be kept. This rises to the level of Stalin erasing Yezhov from documented history. JFG (talk) 06:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It could be censored using a more visible method like on File:The Dark Knight movie poster - censored copyright.jpg. It could be de minimis, unless the file is useless if the frog is removed. --ghouston (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: that image was never intended to be used in articles. It is used to illustrate the concept of de minimis. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: I'm not that good with blurring images, but are you thinking of something like this? FallingGravity (talk) 18:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @FallingGravity: I think that's even more confusing. He still has a sheet of paper tacked to his sign, but it shows a mystery figure now. Is it a map? Is it an outline of a state? An outline of Trump? Rorschach test? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Like I said, I'm not that good at blurring images, at least with my current tools. FallingGravity (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I think I figured out how to blur the image better, and I've updated the image link. FallingGravity (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @FallingGravity: Better, but I generally blur beyond recognition because we are also not allowed to upload album covers scaled down to 30px. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've uploaded the blurred version. Individual Wikiprojects can still use the un-blurred photograph by uploading it locally. FallingGravity (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @FallingGravity: But you can see how distracting the blurred frog is. I still prefer my version, perhaps with a note in a corner to make the user aware something was removed from the picture. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've uploaded the blurred version. Individual Wikiprojects can still use the un-blurred photograph by uploading it locally. FallingGravity (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @FallingGravity: Better, but I generally blur beyond recognition because we are also not allowed to upload album covers scaled down to 30px. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @FallingGravity: I think that's even more confusing. He still has a sheet of paper tacked to his sign, but it shows a mystery figure now. Is it a map? Is it an outline of a state? An outline of Trump? Rorschach test? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's also on File:Donald Trump supporter mocks protesters (32912615810).jpg. --ghouston (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Stalin.. no, I've been called many things but I think that's new. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- This will happen occasionally when photographing a demonstration, copyrighted material on signs ends up in the photo, but a single sign isn't the focus. Is it any different to the Pokemon jet? There must be plenty of other examples, how about File:Nov 18 Bailout Homeowners & taxpayers.jpg? --ghouston (talk) 09:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I found another frog: File:Si Se Puede Frogs.jpg. --ghouston (talk) 09:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- A questionable one, the focus is on a single sign: File:San Francisco Women's March (32412137076).jpg. --ghouston (talk) 09:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Used (again, I had fixed the wikis after the overwrite) on several wikis to illustrate the frog character. The photo is useful without the frog, but sadly my overwrite was reverted so now we'll just have to lose a useful photo completely. (good job, User:JFG!) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I still stand by my statement in the previous DR. This is not de minimis, and can't be since it is intentionally framed. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- The sign is framed. It's plausible that the same photo would have been taken if the frog wasn't there, to get the text of the sign. --ghouston (talk) 02:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment See also Commons:Village_pump#Overwriting_a_file_to_remove_a_de_minimis_element. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Under the Commons De_minimis guidelines, this would likely fall under 6, meaning that the copyrighted work, Pepe in this case, is a key part of the subject, and removing it would make it radically different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpanishSnake (talk • contribs)
- Note: SpanishSnake started this DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, they don't get to !vote twice. I've removed their "vd" template since they've already requested deletion. Thanks for noting this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Note: SpanishSnake started this DR. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete as COM:DW and not COM:DM. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:58, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete if you crop the empty space out of the image, the frog takes up around 8% of the picture, it is also part of the main subject of the photo and not incidental. Not even close to being a de minimis case. The logo on the jacket is an example of de minimis.--BevinKacon (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Beyond My Ken. Also, Wikimedia needs to be able to record current affairs. If this image were to be deleted, that would become indreasingly hard, since symbols, such as trademarks aso, are have become virtually omnipresent. In this case, the image of a frog is obviously a minor aspect of the picture as a whole, so it's not just de minimis visually, but also conceptionally. It's the far-right message that matters here, not the depiction of a frog. Asav | Talk 08:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Asav: so tell JFG and Tesser4D to stop reverting (and revert the image to the blanked or blurred version). Apparently the frog is so important we are not allowed to remove it. Can't be DM in that case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- stop censoring photos while a deletion discussion is underway. why don;t you admin lock it to enforce your version, that would teach the vlasovists. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Asav: so tell JFG and Tesser4D to stop reverting (and revert the image to the blanked or blurred version). Apparently the frog is so important we are not allowed to remove it. Can't be DM in that case. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- DeleteAs a symbol of the alt-right campaign, Pepe is a crucial part when presenting the protester's view. I therefore believe the file is not a "incidental feature" of the whole file. Moreover, the focus of the file is both the protestor and his sign including Pepe per the bokeh applied in the file, so FallingGravity's point may not be appliciable here.廣九直通車 (talk) 15:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep no reason to overturn consensus. the paranoia about low risk items would be comical, if it did not prove the censorious freedom. how many redo's do you want? can i have infinite redo's on the Iwo Jima photo? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- We are not overturning consensus, but determining it. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Would a commonly accepted solution to blur the frog? In that case, the photo could be kept. --Ruthven (msg) 10:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- The file history where both removal and blurring of Pepe have been reverted would suggest not. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- I doubt that there's be any problem keeping the blurred version. But it's redundant (or at least should be uploaded to a separate file) if the original version can also be kept. --ghouston (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- It seems like the way some people are arguing here is that de minimus doesn't need to be permitted on Commons at all, since the copyrighted features can always be blurred out. But Commons *does* currently accept de minimus. But it's such a grey area, I have no idea whether a US court would typically accept the de minimus claim or not in a copyright case. --ghouston (talk) 00:49, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- At least there's a de minimus warning on the file, so potential reusers can decide themselves whether they want to use the image, or go with the blurred version. --ghouston (talk) 00:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- "It seems like the way some people are arguing here is that de minimus doesn't need to be permitted on Commons at all, since the copyrighted features can always be blurred out."
- This is more or less correct. There are several possible reasons for not blurring though: nobody can be bothered to do it (does not apply here), the blur would create a major distraction from the actual main subject (that's why I had removed the frog more neatly) or it is technically difficult to apply the blur (does not apply here). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
- The file history where both removal and blurring of Pepe have been reverted would suggest not. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: I have restored the version of the image without the copyrighted character. The character's presence in the image not merely trivial, and was used in various articles to illustrate "Pepe". If Pepe's presence were trivial, his removal should not be a problem. --Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
COM:OOS Korean Gambling spam 121.147.191.25 23:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: Spam. – Kwj2772 (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Both link to original CC:BY broadcast, and CC:BY news bulletin now taken down. No source available. Kingsif (talk) 11:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 12:34, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Mauvaise utilisation du CC0 de ma part. J'ai bien photographié l'affiche mais je n'ai pas réalisé l'affiche et ne possède pas les droits/autorisation d'utilisation. Mes confuses ! Wenflou (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 11:55, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Source info appears to come from here: http://hkrail.wikia.com/wiki/檔案:Degahk-HKT46.jpg. The Flickr link is a 404, but that’s immaterial since it looks like the image had a non-commercial license. Ytoyoda (talk) 11:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Majora (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file from panoramio, out of scope. Te750iv (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --shizhao (talk) 09:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D artwork in Japan B dash (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Kept, nomination withdrawn. --B dash (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The museum was designed in 2010 and built in 2012. The lead architect was Yelena Andreevna Stoyanova (Russian: Елена Андреевна Стоянова, born in 1964). The idea and architectural solution were produced jointly by Yelena Stoyanova and Sergey Grigoryevich Moiseenko (Russian: Сергей Григорьевич Моисеенко; born in 1960). [10] Jarash (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The Saint Nicholas church was built in 2015. [11] Jarash (talk) 08:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary in Lukava was built in 1992. Jarash (talk) 10:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Istanbul Bosphorus Large landing ship Aleksandr Shabalin IMG 8143 1920.jpg ~★ nmaia d 12:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: replaced with a redirect. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Duplicate of File:Istanbul Bosphorus Large landing ship Aleksandr Shabalin IMG 8149 1920.jpg ~★ nmaia d 12:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Deleted: eplaced with a redirect. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP in Italy, needs permission from the painter. B dash (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
No FoP in Ukraine, needs permission from the copyright holder B dash (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No FoP in France, needs permission from the painter B dash (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Painter unknowned, no signature when I took that picture a decade ago. Pradigue (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
_%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BB._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE,_7.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_%D0%B2%D1%83%D0%BB._%D0%9A%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%B0_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%96%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE,_7.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Ukraine. Created after 2000. No Permission. Микола Василечко (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
No Freedom of Panorama in Ukraine. Created 4.12.2003. No Permission.
--Микола Василечко (talk) 19:22, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Dell Angkor (talk · contribs)
[edit]Images from variety of disparate sources, with a quite clearly false own-work claim.
- File:Seven Angels Cambodia.jpg
- File:Emerald Buddha Cambodia.jpg
- File:Head Brahma.jpg
- File:ព្រះវិស្ណុះជិះលើរាហ៊ូ.jpg
- File:យក្សក្បាលស្វាឈ្មោះពាលី.jpg
- File:ព្រហ្មបែងភាគក្បាល១២ដៃ១២.jpg
- File:ព្រះសិវៈ.jpg
Paul_012 (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
EXIF credits all photos to Kenneth Ek
- File:Wedubois.jpg
- File:Waltersfishes.jpg
- File:Teapotwalters.jpg
- File:Kapernick.jpg
- File:Mlkteapot.jpg
Ytoyoda (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
False claim of authorship. Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
False claim of authorship. Paul_012 (talk) 02:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Agel7.jpg/431px-Agel7.jpg Paul_012 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
False claim of authorship. Paul_012 (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
False claim of authorship. Paul_012 (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Licence doesn't check out on YouTube, potentially it is due only to the music that is being played. Still even if we keep we should decide whether it is necessary to crop out the audio. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 18:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've uploaded a version without audio.--Vera (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted, Vera (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
En tant que détenteurdudroit de cette page , je vous demande de la supprimer ,une autre page sur cette personne a était écrite. RUDEAU.G (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 21:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Image found at http://www.nickwilliams.eu/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/IMG_7424.jpg ; the website says « © 2018 Nick Williams Living World. » No permission mentioned. Tractopelle-jaune (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Image fount at https://news.abidjan.net/h/636346.html ; image legend contains : « © Autre presse par DR » Tractopelle-jaune (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: clear copyright violation. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Small image, no EXIF B dash (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep It is a picture of a historical event and shows a scene from after Typhoon Krosa that struck Taiwan in 2007. If there are no problems with the copyright or licensing status of this picture, then I think "the picture with historical value" should not be deleted so easily.--Kai3952 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep With nothing more than this, keep. It was originally uploaded in 2007 to zhwiki so small size is not that surprising. It was a different time. Small images without EXIF being uploaded today by new users are suspect, small images without EXIF depicting celebrities are suspect, small images without EXIF that look like professional photographs may be suspect. This isn't, really. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
and File:Bassyouni Biography.pdf
COM:OOS: biograpahy belongs to Wikipedia 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:40, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Files of User:GureumCloud
[edit]
For the first two photos, the end of the website reveal that it is offical poster of SUPER JUNIOR DONGHAE&EUNHYUK 1st JAPAN TOUR 2014. For File:Kyuhyun.jpg, we can find the same photo in this website which uploaded the photo on 11 November 2014. --Gda0608 (talk) 05:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
I believe that the main aspect of this video is that song itself (which is evident by the title of the file). Therefore, the author isn't the Youtube uploader, and this individual is unable to licence it under CC-BY. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 06:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
However, the footage (which IS their own, can be placed under that license). The footage is what I uploaded, not the song. SecretName101 (talk) 19:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- COM:DW ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 20:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment You could, however, remove the audio portion of this file. But then it probably would be out of scope. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 20:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- What audio??? It was uploaded without audio.SecretName101 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination This is weird, I don't know that that happened. Apologies. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 05:59, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- What audio??? It was uploaded without audio.SecretName101 (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:42, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Images of Saint Michael church in Liaskavičy (Pietrykaŭ District)
[edit]- File:Ляскавічы. Драўляная царква Архангела Міхаіла (01).jpg
- File:Ляскавічы. Драўляная царква Архангела Міхаіла (02).jpg
- File:Ляскавічы. Драўляная царква Архангела Міхаіла (03).jpg
- File:Церква у с. Лясковичі.jpg
File:Ляскавічы. Царква (01).jpg(duplicate of File:Ляскавічы. Драўляная царква Архангела Міхаіла (03).jpg)- File:Ляскавічы. Царква (02).jpg
- File:Ляскавічы. Царква (03).jpg
- File:Ляскавічы. Царква (04).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}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Belarus. The church was built in 1993. --Jarash (talk) 06:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
No FOP in United Kingdom for graphic works 210.177.49.78 07:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Small image, no EXIF B dash (talk) 07:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:43, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 07:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
incorrect file version / type uploaded Capodilavoro (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
svg turned bad after conversion Sendavo (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
image extracted to File:Helen Clark née Banfield.jpg Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 09:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Should not be deleted. Released under CCBYSA, cannot understand why this is proposed. If something needs to be changed on the Commons upload let me know. Yellow Fratell )no Tildas on keyboard I am using, 10.8.18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by YellowFratello (talk • contribs) 2018-08-10T11:42:12 (UTC)
- Keep What would be the reason complying with Commons:Deletion policy? The file is clearly not an exact duplicate. A derivative work in a different format is not a valid reason for deleting of the original file. Just contrarily: the original needs to be kept to track the history of its derivation and rights. --ŠJů (talk) 06:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per ŠJů --Ras67 (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- speedy Keep due to insufficient deletion reason--Schreibvieh (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
- Propose close this deletion request YellowFratello (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Happypillsjr2 (talk · contribs)
[edit]COM:DW of murals; no FoP in USA. Uploaded by sock in evasion of block for copyios.
- File:Williamsburg PR street art.jpg
- File:HipHopStreetartinbushwick.jpg
- File:MariobrooklynstreetartinBushwick.jpg
- File:Puerto Rican street in East Harlem.jpg
- File:LESstreetart.jpg
Эlcobbola talk 11:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Uploader is author of the book, but most likely not the author and copyrightholder of the cover Take Mirrenberg (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Watermated 維基小霸王 (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Watermarked by New China. 維基小霸王 (talk) 11:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:46, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
the subject's daughter does not want this online Pcgr1ff1th (talk) 12:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:47, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rajeshwar_Rana.png Sunil555 (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
File:HK Intrenational Airport Terminal 香港國際機場 Arrival zone airlines notice sign display monitors Oct-2013.JPG
[edit]
Derivative work of the copyrighted board B dash (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The file is probably a advertisement, which is considered an out of scope and a violation of CSDG10. However, the text on the file should be examined in order to know whether the file is an advertisement. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Wrong format Épine (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a very outdated version of our company logo. To ensure branding is correct we want people who google for our logo to no longer be able to use this out of date version. 194.75.99.228 14:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. We do not delete old logos. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:52, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
No FoP for 2D artwork in USA B dash (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Using a PD photograph of the President is fine. A bit of research shows the poster is a black and white version of File:Official_portrait_of_Barack_Obama.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep The original photo is PD. Evrik (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Online comic, probably not own work, also COM:PCP as no proof that it is from the author's blog B dash (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo-album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by B dash as Dw no source since (dw no source since) Vysotsky (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Original work. See arguments here. Vysotsky (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep B dash is probably seeing invisible stickers again - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
- This work comes from my imagination, I did not use a model or pattern to draw it. I also doubt I have ever seen a photo of Barack Obama dressed like a spy. ;) :D Jacquelinekato (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo-album. Not used.
- File:Donald R. Proctor Sr. Donald Proctor 3rd. Donald Proctor Jr.jpg
- File:One of many Granddaughter of Chief Turkey Tayac aka Philip Sheridan Proctor's.jpg
- File:Chief Turkey Tayac's Granddaughter Vala Leanna Proctor.webp
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Promo photos. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:Mally Mall Press Photo.jpg
- File:Young Trap .jpg
- File:Tao Promo Pics.jpg
- File:Tao Promo Pic3.jpg
- File:"DJ Infamous Talk 2 Me Press Photo".jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Official symbols. Proper license tag should be used if it's in public domain.
- File:Escudo La Victoria, Chiclayo, Lambayeque. Perú.png
- File:Bandera Chiclayo - Lambayeque, Perú.png
- File:Escudo Chiclayo - Lambayeque, Perú.png
- File:Escudo de la Universidad Nacional Pedro Ruiz Gallo.png
EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Any metadata, unlikely to be own work. Patrick Rogel (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
EXIF credits Kenneth Ek Ytoyoda (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Facebook/Instagram download, previously published at http://washington.carpediem.cd/events/7132690-roberto-lugo-artist-talk-us-emerging-voices-in-clay-show-open-at-district-clay-center/ Ytoyoda (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:56, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Facebook download Ytoyoda (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Near identical photo to File:Automobile DSC 0546 (5462159257).jpg Malcolma (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
near identical photo to File:Automobile DSC 0590 (5462399217).jpg Malcolma (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:58, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Supposedly an image from "The Book of Please" by the English artist Austin Osman Spare who died in 1956. Undelete in 2027. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:47, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Works published before 1923 are automatically in the public domain. The 70 year thing doesn't come into effect here. Check out [12] and [13].
- To quote: "Thus, if a work was published in 1922 or earlier, it is now in the public domain. Works that were published between 1923 and 1963 have a 95-year term, provided the copyright was formally renewed in the 28th year. Works published between 1964 and 1977 have a flat 95-year term. Works by individual authors created (not merely published) after 1977 have a term of the author's life + 70 years."
- The Book of Pleasure was published in 1913. Rune370 (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- Of course, that's US law. In the UK, the relevant law is The Copyright Act 1911, which specified 50 years after the writer's death. See [14]. So this work became public domain in the UK in 2007. Either way, it's public domain now, and doesn't need to be deleted. Rune370 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Rune370: from the same article: "In 1995 the period of copyright was extended to the life of the author plus 70 years (as described above) for works which were, at that time, still within copyright anywhere within the European Economic Area." - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
The uploader has two edits: this file, low resolution and without any other information or other work unlikely to be own work. And a copyvio. So imho, this file needs permission. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 00:59, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
(note: I later uploaded File:Donald Trump supporter mocks protesters (32912615810) (cropped).jpg, the same photo without the frog. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC))
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks to ghouston for finding this.
.jpg){kind=link}
Although Pepe the Frog could be considered {{De minimis}} here, as soon as File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg is deleted you can take it to the bank that this image will be used instead to illustrate the frog. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Strong Keep: Obvious example of Commons:De minimis. FallingGravity (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- A requirement for DM is essentially that the derivative can be removed from the picture without hurting it. The actual removal isn't always done for various reasons, either it's complicated, results in a picture that's confusing (though not less valuable) or nobody can be bothered. The frog isn't random, it became a symbol for these supporters. In this case, we can't remove the frog without someone reverting that. So delete. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Your made-up requirement doesn't exist, so keep. FallingGravity (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- A requirement for DM is essentially that the derivative can be removed from the picture without hurting it. The actual removal isn't always done for various reasons, either it's complicated, results in a picture that's confusing (though not less valuable) or nobody can be bothered. The frog isn't random, it became a symbol for these supporters. In this case, we can't remove the frog without someone reverting that. So delete. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep @Alexis Jazz: The main subject in this photo appears to be the man in the front, not the sign in the backround, Under the Commons De_minimis guidelines, this would likely fall under 4, meaning that the copyrighted work, in this case Pepe, is an identifiable and an unavoidable part of the image subject, but is not essential to the subject (blacking it out would not make the file useless). However, this photo definitively should not be used to illustrate Pepe, and deleting the commons category will hopefully do that. —SpanishSnake (talk | contribs) 16:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's not unavoidable. It's gone in this version. Examples of unavoidable would be File:Virgin America airplane interior.jpg. The images on the displays are not freely licensed, but they are completely irrelevant to the picture as a whole. All the displays could show a text-only menu screen, public domain images or just made black and nobody would care. But the frog is here for a reason. If I replace the frog with a race car or some Sesame street character, you would care. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Seems like a good example of where de minimis would apply. It's a photograph of a demonstration where the image on the sign is incidental. --ghouston (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it is truly incidental, I should be able to make the frog disappear without being reverted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- You'd quite likely be reverted for that kind of tampering with any image. You can upload a modified version with a different name if there's a reason for it that makes it in scope. --ghouston (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- The only problem here is that I would be reverted. COM:OVERWRITE isn't written as clearly as it should, but it does not ban overwriting to remove DW. Clearly with the considerable opposition to removal of the frog, the frog isn't DM. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it's DM it doesn't need to be removed. Altering a sign at a demonstration, especially when the thing you are removing from the sign is apparently so controversial, surely violates COM:OVERWRITE. I'd say randomly removing (say) an incidental aircraft in the background of an image would violate COM:OVERWRITE. It doesn't come under the list of "minor improvements". Although you could probably crop away a whole region of sky in which the disappearance of the plane is just a side-effect. If the frog is found to be not DM, then removing it would allow the rest of the image to be retained, so it would be useful. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Ghouston: I've done it before (actually it was an UFO) and the photographer thanked me for it. I've also removed a seagull from a statue, again, no complaints. If it's DM it doesn't have to be removed but there also wouldn't be a revert if it was removed. The summary from COM:OVERWRITE is broken so you should stop blindly following it until it's fixed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it's DM it doesn't need to be removed. Altering a sign at a demonstration, especially when the thing you are removing from the sign is apparently so controversial, surely violates COM:OVERWRITE. I'd say randomly removing (say) an incidental aircraft in the background of an image would violate COM:OVERWRITE. It doesn't come under the list of "minor improvements". Although you could probably crop away a whole region of sky in which the disappearance of the plane is just a side-effect. If the frog is found to be not DM, then removing it would allow the rest of the image to be retained, so it would be useful. --ghouston (talk) 23:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- The only problem here is that I would be reverted. COM:OVERWRITE isn't written as clearly as it should, but it does not ban overwriting to remove DW. Clearly with the considerable opposition to removal of the frog, the frog isn't DM. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- You'd quite likely be reverted for that kind of tampering with any image. You can upload a modified version with a different name if there's a reason for it that makes it in scope. --ghouston (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- If it is truly incidental, I should be able to make the frog disappear without being reverted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Does the usage in Wikipedia actually matter? Should File:Ana.b747.pokemon.arp.750pix.jpg be deleted because it's being used on Pokemon articles? --ghouston (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Depends, such things may also be covered by FoP in some cases. But generally speaking: yes. If the Pokemon are so clearly visible the image is useful to illustrate Pokemon, the Pokemons on the Pokemon jet are not incidental. Besides that:
- Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case?
- "The whitepaper suggested a consideration for determining if specific elements of a utilitarian object are copyrightable under US law: if an object has non-functional elements, then those elements are more likely to be copyrightable if the design of the elements was not influenced by utilitarian pressures."
- - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Depends, such things may also be covered by FoP in some cases. But generally speaking: yes. If the Pokemon are so clearly visible the image is useful to illustrate Pokemon, the Pokemons on the Pokemon jet are not incidental. Besides that:
- Nope, the main image used to illustrate de minimis is used in various Wikipedias on articles for The Dark Knight. The problem is if users make derivative files which focus on the copyrighted de minimis elements. FallingGravity (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep A likeness does not per se equal an infringement og intellectual property rights. (That would mean you couldn't publish photos of people who wore Mickey Mouse masks unless you were 100% sure they were genuine products). Also de minimis. Let's not go overboard here. Asav | Talk 08:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Asav: you can't publish photos of people wearing Mickey Mouse masks, genuine or not, at least not on Commons. They would be fair use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Commons doesn't accept fair use. But again, likeness in itself does not equal IP infringement. See [[15]], for example! Asav | Talk 08:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Asav: you can't publish photos of people wearing Mickey Mouse masks, genuine or not, at least not on Commons. They would be fair use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I don't know if it's a self-fulfilling prophecy, but it already happened. The caption was even adjusted to include (added part in bold) "Frosken Pepe» (på plakaten til høyre) er et internettmem og en vitsetegning". "På plakaten til høyre" means "The poster on the right".
- To portray alt-right, I see little value of the image discussed here over its cropped version without the frog. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, that's my caption. If you have a group portrait and someone standing hardly visible on the far right ('xcuse the pun), you can still mention that person in the caption, and it's still de minimis. Asav | Talk 08:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete I am unconvinced in the value of this photo if it were not for the frog. It is likely to specifically be used purely because of the frog. Not an incidental element of the photo.--BevinKacon (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Obviously de minimis Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep, COM:DM. --B dash (talk) 14:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Context: I was looking for a replacement for File:Donald Trump alt-right supporter (32452974604).jpg when I ran into this.
The story on the banner is too long for PD-text and clearly not de minimis either. The Trump photo on the flag is quite likely available with a free license or USGov, but cropping the banner from this picture is not allowed so I won't look into that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of project scope Derbrauni (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Derivative work of Lego playset. COM:TOYS. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 18:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
affected File:N.Rachaiah with Babu Jagajevanram and Devraj urs.jpg File:N.RACHAIAH with Cabinet Members.jpg : unused file, claimed "external sources", hence, potentially copyright issues, and out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:09, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
affected File:N.Rachaiah with Babu Jagajevanram and Devraj urs.jpg File:N.RACHAIAH with Cabinet Members.jpg : unused file, claimed "external sources", hence, potentially copyright issues, and out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
In most countries, all paintings, sculpture, architecture, text, and other creative works have copyrights which last for 70 years after the death of the creator. An image of a work that is still under copyright is a derivative work, and infringes on the copyright so that we cannot usually keep the image on Commons. In some countries, there is a special exception to the copyright law which allows such images under certain circumstances. We call that exception freedom of panorama (FOP). Unfortunately there is no applicable FOP exception in Ukraine. Created after 2000. No Permission.
And also File:2017 Тернопіль (619) вул. Кардинала Сліпого, 7.jpg
Микола Василечко (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
affected File:SHIVA 03.jpg File:SHIVA 04.jpg File:SHIVA 05.jpg : unused personal uploads, hence, personality right issues, and out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
affected File:SHIVA 03.jpg File:SHIVA 04.jpg File:SHIVA 05.jpg : unused personal uploads, hence, personality right issues, and out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
affected File:SHIVA 03.jpg File:SHIVA 04.jpg File:SHIVA 05.jpg : unused personal uploads, hence, personality right issues, and out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file and personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : unused file, potentially advertising as per file name, and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enjoy holidays with Sharanya Tours 2014-06-10 18-01.jpg, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ?? Roland zh (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : unused file, and personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/613319717881819136/WXkW8vrd_400x400.jpg Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:11, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal upload, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, and/or personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
low resolution, probably not an own work. Sismarinho le blasé (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
COM:PRP - low res, no camera EXIF, close up and posed image of notable person. All other user uploads have been copyvios of similar subjects. Эlcobbola talk 20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
From internet but without permit 141.196.193.29 13:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Daphne Lantier 18:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
unused personal file, and/or personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:12, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- comment PD-USGov trumps CC restrictions. per this example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avril Lavigne and eleven Brazilian children.jpg. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Attribution-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic (CC BY-ND 2.0) Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- comment PD-USGov trumps CC restrictions. per this example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Avril Lavigne and eleven Brazilian children.jpg. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
personality right isssues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ?? Roland zh (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, public space, no reason for deletion. --Insider (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
File:Vadakara mashhoor kunhikoyathangal with Abdur Rahman Bafaqi Thangal and Omarali Shihab Thangal.jpg
[edit]
unused personal file, and/or personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : panoramio transfer of a personal file, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ?? Roland zh (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 22:29, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Probably not own work Frodar (talk) 22:30, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
isn't a free or CC-licence logo. Danyele (talk) 23:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, and/or personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:14, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
your opinions are asked : over-tagged panoramio transfer, but also personality right issues (mail address), hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
unused panoramio transfer, blurry, hence, out of scope ?? Roland zh (talk) 23:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 01:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
ce fichier est en double sur wikimedia commons merci GEORGES43 (talk) 14:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
A supprimer nouveau fichier téléchargé ce jour qui le remplace RUDEAU.G (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
nouveau fichiersur cette personne mis en ligne sur commons le 09/08/2018 RUDO43 (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ronhjones (Talk) 21:27, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Erling mandelmann (talk · contribs)
[edit]no EXIF, maybe no permission or copyvio
- File:Claude-Henry Forney.jpg
- File:Skonnerten Fulton af Marstal.png
- File:Roger Doloy-2, 1997.png
- File:Roger Doloy-1, 1997.png
- File:Uli Windisch, (1983) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Walter Weideli et Mousse (1988) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Walter Weideli (1988) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Pierre-Marcel Favre (1995) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:René Burri (2010) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Phillipe Burrin,1993, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Bram van Velde and Peter Bramsen (1969) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Philippe Becquelin (Mix et Remix 1994) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Michel Corboz (2011) by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Martin Killias, 2000, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Loetscher Hugo, 1993, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Julos Beaucarne,1970, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Jan Groth,1986, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Raja Jigme Dorje Palbar Bista, 2011, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Imsand, Marcel 2007, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:François Daulte,1985, by Erling Mandelmann.png
- File:Chantal Prod'hom 1994, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Beat Bürgenmeier,1992, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Beat Bürgenmeier-2,1992, by Erling Mandelmann.jpg
- File:Asher Edelman, 1993, by Erling Mandelmann.png
- File:Gnassingbé Eyadema, 1972.jpg
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
_by_Erling_Mandelmann.jpg){kind=link}
shizhao (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep See Category:Photographs by Erling Mandelmann and OTRS Ticket:2010090210007829. Vysotsky (talk) 08:01, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment The importance of this photographic collection is immense. Not only are Mandelmann's photographs very frequently used in Wiki (612 files used 3134 times), the collection contains rare photographs of artists, writers and painters (Hugo Loetscher, Francois Daulte, Simenon, Kokoschka, Bram van Velde, Peyo and many others). Famous photographers making their photographs available under a free license are rare. We should value them, and not treat their photographs as if we don't care. Vysotsky (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: per User:Vysotsky; OTRS ticket in place. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:51, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
While I don't read Japanese, Google translate shows that this is a "for Wikipedia only" type release and therefore is not valid. It certainly isn't CC0 either. We would need a specific license and preferably acknowledgement that they understand that a free license means that anyone can use or modify the image, at any time, and for any purpose (including commercial reuse). So far, I'm not seeing either of those things. Majora (talk) 04:08, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- While I don't know anything about licensing and copyright, I am very sure that keeping this images in Wikipedia is beneficial for all: scholars, the authors of the picture and people. The author of the picture is a med. Dr., who has been joining to comic market over decades. He provided this photograph to refute the history revisionists who insist that the comic market was originated and run just by men; on the contrary, the many female 'otaku' were joining to the comic market. Since a comic market is no longer just an event for comic lovers but the object of academic research, I would suggest that the picture should be kept in Wikimedia, considering its significance for academic purpose, with another appropriate licensing(CC0, CC1 kind of things), which I don't know should be right at all. --Kei87c1 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Whether or not it is beneficial is unfortunately irrelevant, Kei87c1. What matters is its copyright status. Which right now is not acceptable to be kept here. If that changes we can keep it otherwise we can't. --Majora (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. License review failed as well. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Replaced with equivalent SVG version and no longer used Lexlexlex (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 15:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
No indication on the source website that this was a work on the UK government. GMGtalk 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Benny Hill was in the English army during WWII and was employed until 1950; PD-UKGov states that copyright expires 50 years after the image is taken. Benny Hill was only in the army until 1950, therefore, copyright should have expired at the latest, in 2001. Also, the image is of an English soldier, therefore it is a UK government work. -- Stapmoshun (talk) 14:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just because he was employed by the government at the time doesn't mean the person who took the image was. For the image to be a government work we need to know more about the photographer, not about the subject. GMGtalk 14:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep credited to 1942-1950 [16] royal artillery uniform, before 1946 central pool of artists [17] "A photograph, which was made available to the public (e.g. by publication or display at an exhibition) more than 70 years ago (before 1 January 1948)" or revise UK anon license. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:19, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: The uniform Hill is wearing in the photo being discussed here looks similar to ones in this photo found on eBay. It could be that this was just a publicity still taken of Hill in character for en:Light Up the Sky! (film), which was released in 1961. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Just to support Marchjulys point Hill was in the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (REME) when he joined the Army and not the Royal Artillery, at least one image of him in REME uniform shows up in google (other search engines are available) search. Clearly not the work of the UK Government. MilborneOne (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Delete probably a publicity shot for the 1960 film Light Up the Sky!, based on the similarities to the images here and here – where he same age and in the same uniform. The Royal Artillery shoulder flashes match this film, but Hill served in REME, a different unit.[18] Also, he looks too old, much older then the photo of him in army uniform here, which shows REME shoulder flashes. Verbcatcher (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per User:Verbcatcher. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a Duplicate Madfox4you (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
There are better versions of the picture (which is actually from 1909). HERCVLES (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
There are better versions of the picture (which is actually from 1909). HERCVLES (talk) 15:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per self-nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Copyright tag removed multiple times. Yes, this is on GitHub, but that may also be a copyvio as we don't know whether the person who put it there has the right to do so (and there's a copyright notice on the bottom of that page, too). The logo is on the website of the journal which has a clear copyright notice at the bottom of the page (http://joss.theoj.org/about). Randykitty (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
This file was created for JOSS by one of its editors, Kevin Moerman, as described here: https://github.com/openjournals/joss/issues/46. Also, the copyright notice at JOSS does not mean that everything on the website is copyrighted, since the articles themselves hosted at the site are clearly licensed under CC-BY licenses.
Is this level of provenance investigated for every image that is uploaded? There is a clear CC-BY license from the organization that created the image at the GitHub repo that hosts it; how is this different from any other license description—for example, the PeerJ logo shared at https://peerj.com/about/press/. Should there also be a concern there that they don't have a right to post it? Egosumliber (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The PeerJ logo is hosted on teh PeerJ website and has a clear notice that it is available under CC. The JOSS logo is on GitHub, but there's no way of knowing that this is with the permission of the publisher. It is also hosted on the journal's website, which has a copyright notice. You can upload it on enWP under fair use, or go through COM:OTRS here. --Randykitty (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- The GitHub repository (openjournals/digital-assets) is owned by the publisher, and exists specifically to openly host the digital assets of the publisher under CC-BY licenses. Certainly that paired with the clear CC license should be sufficient permission? Furthermore, the journal website no longer has a copyright notice, but says "Public user content licensed CC BY 4.0 unless otherwise specified." --Egosumliber (talk) 18:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- http://joss.theoj.org/about states:
Copyright of JOSS papers is retained by submitting authors and accepted papers are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Any code snippets included in JOSS papers are subject to the MIT license regardless of the license of the submitted software package under review.
- A logo is neither a paper nor a code snippet.
- https://peerj.com/about/press/ states:
Display guidelines: Any use of the logos and mascot are licensed CC BY 4.0.
- However, this logo is not on that page.
- https://github.com/openjournals/digital-assets has a file called "LICENSE.txt" which contains the fulltext of CC-by 4.0. If you view the license, there's a Github message at the top:
openjournals/digital-assets is licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
Permits almost any use subject to providing credit and license notice. Frequently used for media assets and educational materials. The most common license for Open Access scientific publications. Not recommended for software.
- However, the file "README.md" states:
Please feel free to use these logos to link to Open Journals, JOSS or any of our other journals. Please don't modify these logos, e.g. change dimensions, colours, or add new words.
- If the logo is somewhere in the Github depository (I can't find it), then the CC-by licence in "LICENSE.txt" would appear to contradict the nonderivative statement in "README.md". --Stefan2 (talk) 19:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
The logo is in that repository, a few directories deep: https://github.com/openjournals/digital-assets/blob/master/joss/logo/JOSS_1000x1000.png. I pointed out the discrepancy in the README language, and it has now been updated to match the CC-BY license.--Egosumliber (talk) 19:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
As to any question of whether this repository exists with permission of the publisher, the actual JOSS application/website (https://github.com/openjournals/joss) is hosted under the same organization as the digital-assets repo (https://github.com/openjournals/digital-assets). While I agree the mismatch in license/permissions language needed to be cleared up, any further questioning of permissions at this point is disingenuous at best.--Egosumliber (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: as duplicate of File:JOSS.png. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
unused personal file, and/or personality right issues, hence, out of scope Wikimedia Commons ? Roland zh (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- This file is unused as of now, even though there is a wikipedia page about the subject. The image used in the page is a better one, to be sure. Is there being a better alternative a valid reason for deletion of an image? And I dont understand what personality right issues are involved here.
--[[ഉ:Drajay1976|അജയ് ബാലചന്ദ്രൻ]] ([[ഉസം:Drajay1976|സംവാദം]]) (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Kept: notable person with article on en.wp. P 1 9 9 ✉ 16:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We need to remove this file per the original content creator's request. Be Here Main Street (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: courtesy deletion of unused file. P 1 9 9 ✉ 17:48, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
This video is almost exact duplicate of File:Capitals parade 2018.webm. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 10:32, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
On this picture, the main element is not Jain but the artwork behind her, which is not de minimis. IF we want to keep this picture, we must crop it. TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:44, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @TwoWings: Je ne tiens pas particulièrement à conserver cette photo. D'autant plus qu'il y a des photos de meilleures qualités de Jain, donc fais comme tu le sens. Pamputt (talk) 15:27, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Pamputt: ce n'est pas "comme je le sens" car je ne maîtrise ni les règles ni la décision finale. Il me semble juste que cette photo ne respecte pas le droit d'auteur et les exceptions de type de minimis. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 18:55, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to ghouston for finding it. The face masks are creative works. I doubt the creator of Pepe the Frog really has any rights to them (is this even pepe?), but whoever created the masks probably does. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Costumes being worn are generally not copyrightable, see our large Category:Cosplay. Notice that the focus of the picture is very much on the people are doing - carrying the Si Se Puede signs - and not the static masks. Also, highly unlikely this is Pepe, since this is an early 2008 image, and since these are Obama supporters. --GRuban (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
- @GRuban: for costumes this is generally true because they are utilitarian as clothing (even if you wouldn't want to wear them every day..). The kind of papier-mâché masks that are portrayed here, I don't think they can be classified as clothing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you made the "no papier-mache" rule up just now. See Category:Cosplay of the Death Star, Category:Cosplay of robots, and many others, full of cardboard, metal, wood, plastic, and yes, papier-mache.--GRuban (talk)
- This is the second time just this month where telling me I'm not making sense backfires. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you made the "no papier-mache" rule up just now. See Category:Cosplay of the Death Star, Category:Cosplay of robots, and many others, full of cardboard, metal, wood, plastic, and yes, papier-mache.--GRuban (talk)
- @GRuban: for costumes this is generally true because they are utilitarian as clothing (even if you wouldn't want to wear them every day..). The kind of papier-mâché masks that are portrayed here, I don't think they can be classified as clothing. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:09, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Comment Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay "In short, both costumes and masks are copyrightable. (..) The 1991 policy decision on costumes and masks by the Copyright Office appears to still be in effect, and although it is only advisory, it is a good indication of where courts tend to fall on this issue. It says that masks are definitely copyrightable" - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- You didn't read to the end. "However, the community has not accepted this strict view, primarily in light of Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits, in which a photograph of a bottle was held not to be derivative of the label on the bottle. Present consensus has adopted the view that in order to be a copyright violation, "[t]he photo would have to be primarily of the mask or other separable element of the costume, e.g. focusing on the expression inherent in the mask distinct from that of the general character."" So, yes, masks are copyright able. But this photo is clearly not focusing on the mask. As above. --GRuban (talk) 15:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:PRP. --JuTa 17:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
