Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2019/03/06
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_logo_-_cmyk.png){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}
_Albert_Renger-Patzsch.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Google own work. E4024 (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC) User has provided metadata for the file showing location and originality. I don't see any copyright infringement. Let's keep Wikimedia growing folks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gold1 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Does Google manufacture cameras? Sorry if I made a mistake. I am totally old-fashioned as regards technology. I'm sure a good admin will solve this quickly. 1989, are you around to save me from embarrasment? --E4024 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, you're right on that. Google doesn't manufacture cameras. The Google tag comes when you use a Google camera application on a non-Google smartphone like Samsung with custom OS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gold1 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Mr.Gold1: You claim to be the photographer of this image, is that correct? If so, why is there a larger version of this image found online? 1989 (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The way I understand that is there is more than one version of the pic but the metadata of each will be different due to the hardware used to take the pic, and many versions will be found online with different sizes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Gold1 (talk • contribs)
- @Mr.Gold1: Here’s a better question. Did you take this photo at this resolution and nothing higher? 1989 (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I kept a bit of a lower resolution to keep the camera app stable from crashing as I was using a custom OS at the time.
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYVIO. --1989 (talk) 01:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
(c) Yara_INFOSLUJBA, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect use of license Bunnies959 (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
modern art living author see it:Marcello Vandelli Pierpao.lo (listening) 19:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. — Racconish 💬 20:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Imagen sacada de Google Geom (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Platonides at 19:42, 6 März 2019 UTC: Insufficient or doubtful author or license. Content was «
This image (or all images in this article or category) needs to be rotated. When rotating JPEGs by 90, 180, or 270 degrees, perform a lossless rotation using a tool such as jpegtran. For more help and a notice that the JPEG rotation cannot always be completely lossless, see Commons:Media for cleanup#Sideways pictures or pictures with noticeable camera tilt.
If the thumbnail on the right side is in the correct orientation, please just purge this image (maybe refresh your browser cache) and remove this template.
{{speedy|no evidence of free licensing}} ==Summary==…» --Krdbot 02:02, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Photos of different places, unlikely to be own work.
- File:Helsinki Skyline.jpg
- File:Marseille Skyline.jpg
- File:Lyon Skyline at Night.jpg
- File:Amsterdam Rembrandt Tower.jpg
- File:Vienna Skyline at Dawn.jpg
- File:Phnom Penh Skyline.jpy.jpg
- File:Chongqing Skyline.jpg
- File:Chongqing Skyline at Night.jpg
- File:Hong Kong Skyline at Night.jpg
- File:Chengdu Skyline at Dawn.jpg
- File:New Delhi Skyline at Night.jpg
- File:Saint Petersburg Skyline.jpg
- File:Mumbai Skyline at Dawn.jpg
- File:Jakarta Skyline 02042018.jpg
- File:Makati, Metro Manila Skyline.jpg
- File:Seoul skyline from the Han River Korea.jpg
- File:St. Petersburg Night.jpg
- File:Kiev Night Skyline.jpg
- File:Valencia Spain Skyline.jpg
- File:Barcelona Skyline.jpg
- File:Madrid Skyline 03.jpg
- File:Milano Skyline 03.jpg
- File:Tokyo Tower at dawn.jpg
- File:Hanoi Skyline 2018.jpg
- File:Tianjin Skyline.jpg
- File:Shenzhen Skyline at dawn.jpg
- File:Johor Bahru 01.jpg
- File:Iskandar puteri.jpg
- File:Johor Bahru 02.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
A series of variously sized and of varying quality images of skylines of global cities. Unlikely own work, for size, quality, lack of metadata and the fact that no one can be in all those places on the same day... EG: Rio de Janeiro, Montreal, Detroit, Boston, and Havana all on March 6.
- File:Lima Skyline.jpg
- File:Puebla Skyline.jpg
- File:Bogota Skyline 02.jpg
- File:Havana Sunset.jpg
- File:Medellin Skyline.jpg
- File:Bogota Skyline 01.jpg
- File:Valparaiso Skyline.jpg
- File:Rosario Skyline.jpg
- File:Cordoba Skyline.jpg
- File:Buenos Aires Skyline 01.jpg
- File:Buenos Aires Skyline.jpg
- File:Concepcion Skyline.jpg
- File:Santiago Skyline at Night.jpg
- File:Rio de Janeiro Skyline.jpg
- File:Montreal Skyline.jpg
- File:Detroit Skyline 01.jpg
- File:Detroit Dawn Skyline.jpg
- File:Boston Skyline 01.jpg
- File:Sunset in Chicago.jpg
- File:Washington DC Skyline.jpg
- File:Denver Skyline at Dawn.jpg
- File:San Francisco Dawn Skyline.jpg
- File:Seattle Night Skyline.jpg
- File:Athens Skyline.jpg
- File:Cologne Skyline.jpg
- File:Berlin Skyline at Dawn.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Per metadata, these are unambiguous copyvios. --Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
(c)Juan Manuel Barrero Bueno, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation so speedy. --Herby talk thyme 12:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
replaced by Haus Zeller, Stuttgart, Treppe in der Vorhalle.jpg Gerd Leibrock (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: and redirected as dupliacte. --JuTa 18:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
https://aminoapps.com/c/thrones/page/blog/theirlastwords-s03e01/j0mU_KuJeKrbBRb222nNZMMxZ6o0wx2 Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination copyright violation. --Ronhjones (Talk) 21:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Advertising.
- File:Betting Situs Judi Bola Tepercaya.jpg
- File:SPORBOOK JOS889.jpg
- File:SBOBET ONLINE TERPERCAYA TERBARU 2019.jpg
- File:SPORTBOOK AGEN BOLA ONLINE.jpg
- File:JOS889 SICBO.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: COM:NETCOPYVIO. --1989 (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused drawing of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 06:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused drawing of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused drawing of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused photoshop montage of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 07:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused image of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused drawing of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused drawing of questionable educational value. Commons is not a hosting service for non-notable cartoonists. AshFriday (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Souryanvasquez (talk · contribs)
[edit]Per COM:NOTHOST
- File:Ryan vasquez perfil.png
- File:Ryan Vasquez, Jhonny guedez y xavier gomes.jpg
- File:Ryan Vasquez perfil.jpg
- File:Ryan Vasquez.jpg
Rodrigolopes (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work of a Reuters photo. Ytoyoda (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused out of scope unnecessary image. If anyone knows him please put a name. E4024 (talk) 03:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It was uploaded by me. I would like to upload more comprehensive one. Akkhaing (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyright violation. Please do not upload any further stills from this video until the source has a license. --Green Giant (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of scope – not educationally useful; promotional images with no potential for educational use/cross-wiki spam.
- File:Divad6.jpg
- File:Divad37.jpg
- File:Divad32.jpg
- File:Divad31.jpg
- File:Divad53.jpg
- File:Divad52.jpg
- File:Divad27.jpg
- File:Divad57.jpg
- File:Divad47.jpg
- File:Divad16.jpg
- File:Divad54.jpg
- File:Divad13.jpg
- File:Divad8.jpg
- File:Divad62.jpg
- File:Divad61.jpg
- File:Divad7.jpg
- File:Divad30.jpg
- File:Divad59.jpg
- File:Divad41.jpg
- File:Divad3.jpg
- File:Divad1.jpg
- File:Divad18.jpg
- File:Divad21.jpg
- File:Divad2.jpg
- File:Divad17.jpg
Hiàn (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo of photo, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted already. --E4024 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
© 2019 ДДХ ба номи академик Б.Ғафуров Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Speedy delete, COM:CSD#G4 Recreation of content previously deleted per community consensus above. See also Commons:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ravshanfikr.tj. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ravshanfikr.tj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Low-re official portraits, no metadata, unlikely to be own work.
- File:Азизов Абдулатиф Абдуҳалимович.jpg
- File:Шокиров Туғрал Сироҷович;.png
- File:Абдуқодиров Абдусалом.jpg
- File:Ҷӯразода Ҷамшед Ҳабибулло.jpg
- File:Саидумрон Саидов.jpg
- File:Саидов Саидумрон.jpg
- File:Жабборов Абдукадир Жабборович.jpg
- File:Farhod-Rahimi-Prezidenti-Akademiyai-ilmhoi-CHT-2 (1).jpg
- File:Солиев Зокирхоҷа.jpg
- File:Бердиев Рузмат Баротович.jpg
- File:Қурбонов Қосим Муродович.jpg
- File:Махсудов Барот Исломович.jpg
- File:Ҷалилов Хуршед Мақсудович.jpg
- File:Низамова Туҳфамо Давлатовна.jpg
- File:Ҷабборов Фатҳулло Амриевич.jpg
- File:Алиев Олимҷон Маҳмудович.jpg
- File:Уктам Ҷумаев.jpg
- File:Ойев Насимҷон Абдулмуминович.jpg
- File:Раҳимов Мирзоҳид Абдувоҳидович.jpg
- File:Нидоев Парвиз Фозилович.jpg
- File:Ниёзов Ҳамзақул Ҳамроқулович.jpg
- File:Ғуломов Масрур Мирзохонович.jpg
- File:Сафаров Амиршо Fоибович.jpg
- File:Муҳидинов Зайниддин Қамарович.jpg
- File:Иброҳимов Муродалӣ Файзалиевич.jpg
- File:Ҷумъаев Баҳовиддин Маҳмадназарович.jpg
- File:Исмоилов Абдураҳим Ахматович.jpg
- File:Сафоев Абдумаҷид Каримович.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ravshanfikr.tj (talk · contribs)
[edit]Small images without EXIF data and logos, user blocked twice for copyvios. Unlikely to be own works.
- File:Вазорати саноат ва технологияҳои нави Ҷумҳурии Тоҷикистон.jpg
- File:Акси Донишкадаи энергетикии Тоҷикистон.jpg
- File:Бинои Институти кимиёи ба номи В.И.Никитини АИ ҶТ.png
- File:Институти кимиёи ба номи В.И.Никитини АИ ҶТ.png
- File:Вазорати фарҳанги Ҷумҳурии Тоҷикистон.png
- File:Кумитаи ҳолатҳои фавқулодда ва мудофиаи граждании назди Ҳукумати Ҷумҳурии Тоҷикистон.png
Yann (talk) 13:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- The PNG format does not provide Exif by design. As a Commons admin Yann probably can find some use of this fact for future times. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Incnis Mrsi: To save my time, you can stop disparagingly comment. Yann (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Singersushantsingh (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:Singer sushant singh party.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh 5.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh live2.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh rajput bete ka dard.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh rajput 3.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh rajput.jpg
- File:Singer actor sushant singh rajput.jpg
- File:Singer actor sushant singh shoot.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh shoot live.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh shoot.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh live.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh popat been.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer sushant singh live.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer sushant singh 2.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh live.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh live.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh film shooting.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh shooting set.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh shooting.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh shooting 2.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh party 32.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh party23.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh party 3.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh party2.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri sushant singh rajput.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh rajput 2.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer actor sushant singh.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh rajput 6.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh 4.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer sushant singh rajput.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh rajput.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri actor sushant singh.jpg
- File:Actor pawan singh with singer sushant singh.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh4.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh3.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh1.jpg
- File:Singer sushant singh2.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer sushant.jpg
- File:Singer Sushant.jpg
- File:Bhojpuri singer sushant singh.jpg
- File:Singer Sushant Singh.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --1989 (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-free Bing map. Hanooz 01:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Non-free file 太假真人 (talk) 05:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Published here, albeit with watermark: http://farsiha.ir/بیوگرافی-مارکوس-نیومایر-بازیکن-فوتبا/ Ytoyoda (talk) 05:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a derivative work of a 3D object uploaded from Internet with no photographer's permission.
Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 07:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
COM:SELFIE Zenwort (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
non-free - taken from https://sports.ndtv.com/cricket/vijay-shankar-not-thinking-about-world-cup-selection-despite-final-over-heroics-against-australia-2003225 Lugnuts (talk) 09:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Self promotion COM:HOST and out of COM:SCOPE
Lacrymocéphale (talk) 10:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Probably uploaded only as a prank into Category:God. Unlikely to be used in a project. Takeaway (talk) 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused table, no normal description, no categories. Seems out of project scope. If the data are really useful, then wikitable should be used. Taivo (talk) 11:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.pinterest.fr/pin/575405289887195140/?lp=true, Photo: WWW.MIODUSZEWSKA.PL, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(c) Ola Hedin, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
© Tommy Andersson 2015, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Similar to https://www.egyps.com/home2019/conference/egyps-2019-speakers/global-business-speakers/ Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Album cover : copyrighted. Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nominator. --Leoboudv (talk) 23:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Small photo without metadata, bigger version exists in Twitter. I suspect not own work, but copyright violation. Taivo (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and COM:PRP. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Modern art, living author Com:No FOP in Italy, see it:Angelo Casciello Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Modern art, living author Com:No FOP in Italy, see it:Angelo Casciello Pierpao.lo (listening) 12:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.instagram.com/gurt_made_in_ukraine/?hl=ru Promo photo. No evidence of permission(s). Patrick Rogel (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Support--Rocky Masum (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)- Delete-- FitIndia 18:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete-- Obvious copyvio! --Mhhossein talk 10:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
not used in any article Albert (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
not used in any article Albert (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
not used in any article Albert (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
spam + advertising Albert (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
spam, not used in any article Albert (talk) 12:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://plus.google.com/photos/100092405317524668515/albums/profile/6313770915892696754?iso=false Patrick Rogel (talk) 13:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Spam with uncredited elements
Lacrymocéphale (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No Commons:Freedom of panorama in Russia for 2D works. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved to relevant project as wiki-text if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability and unclear copyrights status. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Should be moved to relevant project as wiki-text if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused diagrams of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Politikanalyse (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: unused diagram of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful.
- File:Das Wirkungstiefenmodell (Klimaschutz).pdf
- File:Das Wirkungstiefenmodell.pdf
- File:Das Wirkungstiefenmodell effektiven Klimaschutzes.pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document of questionable notability. Unclear copyrights status of image. EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Restored: Logo wasn't unused, as you see in this edit in de:Staatliche Technikakademie Alsfeld: de:Spezial:PermanentLink/186532787 --Emha (talk) 10:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Emha (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF, could be found with Google Images. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused chart of questionable notability. Should be in MediaWiki Graph or SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ankush Singhvi (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SK Anand 123 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private drawing album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rofiatyunus (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal photo by non-contributor CSD F10
Ies (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Rofiatyunus (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo/drawing album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The page to which this was linked and on which this logo appears https://www.mobromarine.com/ is clearly marked (C). Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, above TOO. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Ymblanter (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Low resolution, same as File:Canal Vie 2013 logo.png 76.66.191.95 21:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: deleted by Túrelio. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
COM:PENIS, out of scope funplussmart (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Worthless, poor quality, redundant and out of scope. AshFriday (talk) 06:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jianhui67 T★C 03:41, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Sk Abdul Raheman (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; likely copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 06:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Time magazine 1942 Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation "This was a photo sent into a local Zine published in Chicago". Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:05, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Personal image: unlikely to be used in a project. Takeaway (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mjrakesh1958 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Personal images, all of which apparently feature the uploader as the main subject. Unlikely to be used in a project.
- File:Avengers endgame rakesh akdhuanmbsbiuuisvb.jpg
- File:Rakesh gun action aoshduoyr98wewbn,v.jpg
- File:MJ Rakesh 1958.jpg
Takeaway (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Mjrakesh1958 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of COM:SCOPE.
- File:RC 3Dhjawy89d.png
- File:MJ RakeshHorror night rc dkfy89wes.jpg
- File:Happy birthday rakesh-2019.jpg
- File:Rakesh editedakljoiqeyogsvhjzn.jpg
- File:Rakesh kloiiu.jpg
- File:Rakesh kadeif09.jpg
- File:Rakesh UYYUbjk m,k kh.jpg
- File:Rakesh mj auydt7a.jpg
- File:Rakesh Yadav 122312eqwd.jpg
- File:Rakesh Yadav.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 15:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
This photo was just a test to see if an uploading app works. (It does work). I don't want to keep it on Commons. ThePickeringtonian (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy delete Recent upload, nominated by creator. @ThePickeringtonian: for the future, note that accidental or test uploads qualify for speedy deletion, so you can simply tag such files with
{{SD|G1}}and they’ll be removed without further discussion. Any file you uploaded less than a week ago can be “courtesy deleted”—for any reason at all, or none in particular—if you tag it{{SD|G7}}.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(c)DIVA RUANNA/DHAYVACAM CANON, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(c)DIVA RUANNA/DHAYVACAM CANON, missing permission + COM:DW Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10213273668657222&set=a.1374591405800&type=3&theater, Photo: Annick Ramp, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Dear Sirs and Madams, I work for Mr. Strebel regarding Wikipedia and Commons.
The rights to use the two photos (Hannes Strebel.jpg and File:Hannes Strebel Foto Ralph Hut 2010.jpg) were requested and also granted regarding the photo by Annick Ramp. See the correspondence attached below. The image of Raph Thut can be deleted.
Many Thanks. For further inquiries, we are at your disposal.
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren, ich arbeite für Herrn Strebel bezüglich Wikipedia und Commons.
Die Rechte für die Verwendung der beiden Fotos wurden angefragt und bezüglich des Fotos von Annick Ramp auch erteilt. Siehe die diversen unten angefügten Korrespondenzen. Das Bild von Raph Thut kann gelöscht werden.
Vielen Dank. Für Rückfragen stehen wir gerne zur Verfügung.
Hannes Strebel schreibt mir (= Goldene Füger-Medaille) am 12. März 2019:
Die Bestätigung für das Portrait liegt nun vor. Wir müssen als Quelle Annick Ramp erwähnen. Das Bild von Ralph Thut kann gelöscht werden.
freundliche gruesse hannes strebel
Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Von: hannes strebel <hannes.strebel@mac.com> Betreff: Aw: fotos Datum: 12. März 2019 um 17:00:50 MEZ An: Ruckstuhl Christoph <christoph.ruckstuhl@nzz.ch>
Lieber Herr Ruckstuhl vielen dank für Ihre Nachricht und der Bestätigung dass ich das Bild in Wikipedia verwenden darf.. Das Bild wir ohnehin nur Briefmarkengross erscheinen. Ich würde es mit einer Quellenangabe versehen. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Hannes Strebel
Am 12.03.2019 um 16:40 schrieb Ruckstuhl Christoph <christoph.ruckstuhl@nzz.ch>:
Lieber Herr Strebel Vielen Dank für Ihre Anfrage (die mich über Annick Ramp erreicht hat). Von mir aus ist es kein Problem, wenn Sie das Bild für Wikipedia verwenden, solange Sie den Credit – dh. die Quelle angeben. Eine höhere Auflösung finden wir problematisch, da das Bild ja nicht als Download auf Wikipedia zur Verfügung stehen sollte. Zudem ist das Portraitbild ein Wahnsinnsausschnitt aus dem Original und offenbar auch noch schlecht nachbearbeitet und hat nichts mehr mit dem ursprünglichen Bild von Annick zu tun. Ich weiss nun nicht recht, wie wir das alles lösen sollen. Mit freundlichen Grüssen Christoph Ruckstuhl
NZZ
Christoph Ruckstuhl Leiter NZZ-Photographen-Team
Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG Falkenstrasse 11 · Postfach · CH-8021 Zürich Zentrale +41 44 258 11 11 · Direkt +41 44 258 14 90 · Mobile +41 79 648 32 25 christoph.ruckstuhl@nzz.ch · www.nzz.ch
Von: Annick Ramp <kontakt@annickramp.ch>
Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. März 2019 15:20
An: NZZ Photographen <photographen@nzz.ch>
Betreff: Fwd: fotos
Hoi Zäme
Könnte jemand von euch Herr Strebel kurz antworten?
Vielen Dank.
Lg Annick
Anfang der weitergeleiteten Nachricht:
Von: hannes strebel <hannes.strebel@mac.com> Betreff: Aw: fotos Datum: 12. März 2019 um 10:33:56 MEZ An: Annick Ramp <kontakt@annickramp.ch>
Guten Tag Frau Ramp
Nachträglich vielen Dank für die Vermittlung Ihres Berufskollegen Alan Maag. Er hat mir sehr schöne Bilder eines meiner Projekte geliefert und ich bin mit seiner Arbeit sehr zufrieden.
An Sie habe ich folgende Frage: Sie haben seinerzeit eine Reihe von Portraits von mir gemacht. Nun würde ich gerne für eine geplante Wikipedia-Seite eine davon verwenden. (Anhang) Dafür wäre einerseits Ihr Einverständnis notwendig und anderseits eine bessere Auflösung erwünscht . Liesse sich da was machen?
Freundliche Grüsse Hannes Strebel
<Hannes_Strebel annick ramp.jpg>
Am 21.11.2014 um 09:43 schrieb Annick Ramp <kontakt@annickramp.ch>:
Guten Tag Herr Strebel
Anbei nun eine Auswahl der Portraits, die ich von Ihnen gemacht habe anlässlich des Berichts in der NZZ. Für den privaten Gebrauch dürfen Sie diese gerne verwenden, falls Sie eines davon für kommerzielle Zwecke verwenden möchten, machen wir Ihnen gerne eine Offerte.
Beste Grüsse Annick Ramp
ANNICK RAMP PHOTOGRAPHY HÖNGGERSTRASSE 31, CH - 8037 ZÜRICH PHONE 0041 76 404 78 00
KONTAKT@ANNICKRAMP.CH WWW.ANNICKRAMP.CH
<Strebel_141114_3.jpg><Strebel_141114_4.jpg><Strebel_141114_5.jpg><Strebel_141114_7.jpg><Strebel_141114_8.jpg><Strebel_141114_9.jpg> Am 20.11.2014 um 14:26 schrieb Strebel Hannes:
guten tag frau ramp
ihr foto in der nzz gefaellt mir.
gerne erwarte ich ihre uebrige auswahl.
mit freundlichen gruessen
hannes strebel dipl. ing. architekt hdk sia wolfbachstrasse 15, 8032 zuerich 044 261 90 21 079 747 06 79
- Hi @Goldene Füger-Medaille: Commons dosn't acced forwarded e-mail correspondance so please have Annick Ramp sending a permission via COM:OTRS. Please verify too that Hannes Strebel is within COM:SCOPE. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 21:49, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am in constant contact with Mr Strebel, who will ask Mrs Ramp for that. As soon as I know something new, I will contact you again. With kind regards. Goldene Füger-Medaille (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; permission must be sent to OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo: Ralph Hut, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Picture can be deleted, please look up here. Goldene Füger-Medaille (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(c) Stephan Pick, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 22:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo: Rodion Platonov, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo: Rodion Platonov, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo: Rodion Platonov, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 06:00, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo: Rodion Platonov, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Jana Kleplová (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:Brno je moje rodné město - má krásné zákoutí.jpg
- File:Zvolila jsem raději sport.jpg
- File:Po přípravě na fitness závody.jpg
- File:Ve vodě jsem jako doma.jpg
- File:Zdolání vrchu. ( Medlánecký kopec ).jpg
- File:Když se dám do gala.jpg
- File:Sbírka miniatur whiskey kolekce sérií z celého světa.jpg
- File:Fitness prvek v provedení ve stoje.jpg
- File:Sbírka miniatur a výroba šperků byli jedny z mích vícero koníčků.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by RONENNATANOV (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images.
- File:Ronen.jpg
- File:Ronen Natanov.jpg
- File:רונן נתנוב רפאל.jpg
- File:רונן נתנוב.jpg
- File:הסקרנות הרגה את החתול.jpg
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cibervigia (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unused out of COM:SCOPE personal images (:es:CIRO GUTIERREZ RODRIGUEZ (CIRO’S:.)).
Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; the artwork would need permission. --Gbawden (talk) 05:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
(c)Rosh Sillars, missing permission. Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
© 2012 Bloomberg Finance LP, COM:LL Patrick Rogel (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination; flickrwashing. --Gbawden (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Non-notable company, item deleted on Wikidata, out of scope Jianhui67 T★C 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unused logo of unknown organization, maybe out of project scope. Quality is bad. Sourca country is probably Mexico. Taivo (talk) 11:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
not used in any article Albert (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
spam and advertisement Albert (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
spam and advertisement Albert (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
not used in any article + advertisement Albert (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination, out of project scope. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:40, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: unused trivial logo of questionable notability. Should be in SVG if useful. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:47, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Bhatnagar07k (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:46, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Femaleempowerment (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Somnathmali10 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Somnath Mali at Lakshmi Mandir.jpg
- File:Somnath Mali 5.jpg
- File:Somnath Mali 4.jpg
- File:Somnath Mali 3.jpg
- File:Somnath Mali 2.jpg
- File:Somnath Mali.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by SOMNATH SANKI (talk · contribs)
[edit]Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used.
- File:Pizap Fotor.jpg
- File:Somnath Sanki.jpg
- File:Pic with sig somnath.jpg
- File:Pic with sig somnath5.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photo album. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
This chart is copyied from a copyrighted electronic publication. 217.144.202.152 01:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep I'm one of the authors of the electronic publication http://avalikultrailbalticust.ee/PDF/ARB_MMistakesRB_CBA_by_EY.pdf this chart is copied from and I own all rights to copy and share this chart. I confirm there is no violation of law or terms of usage. -- Priit Humal 05:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Priithumal (talk • contribs) 05:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom, please send permission to OTRS. http://avalikultrailbalticust.ee/framework/index.php clearly states (C). --Gbawden (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The file seems to be too large 118.238.247.50 01:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: Corrupt image. --Gbawden (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HandsomeBoy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Redundant files - we already have File:InternationalSchoolIbadan.jpg
- File:InternationalSchoolIbadan9.jpg
- File:InternationalSchoolIbadan6.jpg
- File:InternationalSchoolIbadan4.jpg
- File:InternationalSchoolIbadan5.jpg
- File:InternationalSchoolIbadan3.jpg
Gbawden (talk) 08:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --PierreSelim (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by HandsomeBoy (talk · contribs)
[edit]Posters, some copied from WhatsApp, out of scope and/or no permission.
- File:AfroCine 2021 Global Winners.jpg
- File:AfroCine 2021 Gender Gap Filler.jpg
- File:AfroCine 2021 Diversity Winner.jpg
- File:AfroCine 2021 Language Winner.jpg
- File:IMG-20210731-WA0049.jpg
- File:IMG-20210920-WA0015.jpg
- File:IMG-20210921-WA0000.jpg
- File:IMG-20210922-WA0000.jpg
- File:AfroCine poster2.jpg
- File:Afrocine cover photo.jpg
- File:Afrocine cover photo.png
Yann (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
- No permission issue at all. I have the CorelDraw files for all of them, except those built on Canva. WhatsApp file might have been uploaded because I probably sent them to some Wikimedia WhatsApp groups. If you are saying they are not needed on Commons, that is a different issue entirely. But as far as permissions is concerned, they are own work. HandsomeBoy (talk) 09:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 12:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 209.148.53.10 10:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Hanooz 11:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 209.148.53.10 11:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. Hanooz 11:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Unauthorized photo from band of which I'm no longer a member 2604:2000:2B47:BF00:2507:52A:D047:6B49 11:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Gbawden (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Lola Cartagena (talk · contribs)
[edit]Permission of Àlex Oltra needed via COM:OTRS.
- File:Diana Morant junto a Ximo Puig y Amparo Marco.jpg
- File:Diana Morant en Fitur con un empresario de Gandia.jpg
- File:Diana Morant junto a Alberto Contador.jpg
- File:Diana Morant en Fitur.jpg
- File:Diana Morant, alcaldesa de Gandia (Valencia, España), en el balcón del ayuntamiento de la ciudad.jpg
- File:Diana Mora presentando la marca turística de Gandia.jpg
- File:Diana Morant reunida en Fitur.jpg
,_en_el_balc%C3%B3n_del_ayuntamiento_de_la_ciudad.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 11:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
The Flickr user writes "This is not one of my photos, but I share". Therefore, there is no data about the name of the real author, nor proof of license or authorization ! TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- @ComputerHotline and JuTa: You both deleted the missing-permission template I added. Nevertheless, there IS a real problem with that particular file (although other files from the same Flickr account seem OK). IMO it deserved a speedy deletion, but since nobody seems to realize the difference between that file and the other files from this Flickr account, I suppose a DR was necessary... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 13:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; unlikely to be own work. --Gbawden (talk) 11:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
False license, authorship and date. The man died in 1998 GAndy (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Historical photos. Proper author/source and country of origin should be provided and license tags corrected.
- File:Ugnsrum för Limpbageriet..pdf
- File:Ugnsrum för Franska Brödbageriet.pdf
- File:JC Schröders Bageri och Konditori (dragen) 1.pdf
- File:JC Schröders Bageri och Konditori (dragen) 2.pdf
- File:JC Schröders Bageri och Konditori (dragen).pdf
EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Los Peces Gordos (talk · contribs)
[edit]Promo photos and logo. No evidence of permission(s).
- File:25 años de Los Peces Gordos.jpg
- File:Logo de Los Peces Gordos.jpg
- File:Los Peces.jpg
- File:Los Peces Gordos.jpg
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Sealle (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Fan gallery of people, all Facebook size or smaller.
- File:MarianaIanelli.jpg
- File:PAULO JOSÉ.jpg
- File:Luís Henrique Pellanda.jpg
- File:Marianawikipedia.jpg
- File:Escritora Mariana Ianelli.jpg
- File:Thomaz Ianelli.jpg
- File:Arcangelo ianelli.jpg
- File:Mariana Ianelli.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Incorrect geometry; replaced by File:Zimtsäurenitril Strukturformel.png. Leyo 08:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination; has also a bad-quality with coloured nitrile-group. I support the deletion! Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --DMacks (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
One bond of the nitrile is longer than others (all three bonds go to the N, so should end in parallel). Have File:A-366,833.svg that is also larger (well, vector:) and transparent bg DMacks (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination! Using the vector graphic replacement is the best option! Chem Sim 2001 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per discussion. Ed (Edgar181) 15:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Added trademark warning to each file in its category. Non-copyright restriction too. Abzeronow (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep – this is no valid reason for deletion per COM:NCR#Trademark law. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Anwälte mahnen wegen der eingetragenen Marke "Pharus" (https://register.dpma.de/DPMAregister/marke/register/462880/DE) alle alten Karten ab, die ohne schriftliche Genehmigung veröffentlicht werden. Ich würde generell auf Kartenausschnitte von Pharus verzichten auch wenn die Karten in der Regel gemeinfrei sind. mritz
- Frage aus privatem Interesse: dürfen die das? Zumal es ja nur eine Wortmarke ist. Ich darf doch im (privaten) Bereich jedwede Markennamen öffentlich benutzen? "Coca-Cola trinke ich gerne" usw.? (Nachtrag: "Damit ein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vorliegt, muss eine markenmäßige Benutzung des konkreten Zeichens vorliegen. Die Marke muss also zur Unterscheidung von Waren oder Dienstleistungen eingesetzt werden, damit der Tatbestand der Markenrechtsverletzung greift."[1] --MAbW (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC))
- Und: Man kann ja Kartenausschnitte zeigen, wenn da nicht "PHARUS" steht (als Wort, nicht Teil des Bildes).
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [2] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Um das Urheberrecht geht es hier nicht (!) sondern um das Markenrecht. Die Schutzmarke zeigt das auf dem Kartenbild. Darf Wikipedia die Karte im Internet zeigen? Das Markenrecht ist aktuell. mritz
- @Mritz: Das Markenrecht verbietet nicht, etwas Markenrechtlich Geschütztes zu zeigen bzw. (bei Wortmarken) zu nennen. Nur die kennzeichenmäßige Benutzung der Marke ist nicht zulässig, sie findet hier aber nicht statt.
- @MAbW: Ist denn definitiv sicher, dass Cornelius Löwe selbst der Kartograf dieser Karte (und auch anderer Pharus-Karten) ist, oder ist das lediglich eine Vermutung? Gibt es Nachweise, Belege, Literatur über die Urheberschaft? Für eine Entscheidung über den Löschantrag sollte schon gesichert sein, welche Person tatsächlich der Urheber ist, sonst wird vermutlich im Zweifelsfall wegen unklarer urheberrechtlicher Lage (nicht wegen dieser Markengeschichte) gelöscht. --Rosenzweig τ 19:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- so sehe ich das eigentlich auch
- Keine Ahnung, wer die Karte erstellt hat. Aber lt. der niederl. Unibibliothek stammt sie ca. aus dem Jahr 1905. Als mehr als 100 Jahre gelten als sichere Annahme, daß keine Rechte mehr bestehen. Und vor allem: da eine Kennzeichnung fehlt, greift IMHO UrhG §66. Die ganze Diskussion betrifft ja eine Reihe von Karten und Ausschnitten, mritz hat hier einen Rundumschlag vorgenommen - ich vermute mal, weil er selbst privat Streß mit seiner Seite und den dort benutzten Dateien hat? --MAbW (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Als mehr als 100 Jahre gelten als sichere Annahme, daß keine Rechte mehr bestehen": Falsch, sicher ist da gar nichts. Die dt. Wikipedia vermutet (sogenannte pragmatische Regelung), dass nachweislich mindestens 100 Jahre alte Werke gemeinfrei sind, sofern der Name des Urhebers oder dessen Todesdatum auch nach gründlicher Recherche in Suchmaschinen, Datenbanken und biographischen Nachschlagewerken nicht herausgefunden werden kann (de:WP:BR). Commons hat mit {{PD-old-assumed}} mittlerweile etwas Ähnliches, hier gelten aber 120 Jahre.
- Keine Ahnung, wer die Karte erstellt hat. Aber lt. der niederl. Unibibliothek stammt sie ca. aus dem Jahr 1905. Als mehr als 100 Jahre gelten als sichere Annahme, daß keine Rechte mehr bestehen. Und vor allem: da eine Kennzeichnung fehlt, greift IMHO UrhG §66. Die ganze Diskussion betrifft ja eine Reihe von Karten und Ausschnitten, mritz hat hier einen Rundumschlag vorgenommen - ich vermute mal, weil er selbst privat Streß mit seiner Seite und den dort benutzten Dateien hat? --MAbW (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- "da eine Kennzeichnung fehlt, greift IMHO UrhG §66" - auch falsch, dass eine "Kennzeichnung fehlt", heißt bei einem Werk vor 1995 noch lange nicht, dass tatsächlich ein anonymes bzw. pseudonymes Werk vorliegt. Sobald in irgendeinem Archiv oder Fachartikel bekannt ist, wer der Urheber ist, ist das Werk eben nicht ano- bzw. pseudonym, fehlende Kennzeichnung hin oder her. de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht)##Frühere Rechtslage in Deutschland / Übergangsrecht und de:WP:BR#Bilder, deren Urheber nicht bekannt ist.
- Solange also völlig unklar ist, wer denn nun tatsächlich der Urheber ist, tendiere ich zur Löschung aus urheberrechtlichen Gründen. -- Rosenzweig τ 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Die ZLB Berlin führt ihn hier [1] ganz explizit als Urheber der Karte auf. Das sollte als Urheberangabe völlig ausreichen. --Michael Sch. (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- ↑ https://www.urheberrecht.de/markenrecht/#Geschuetzte-Marken-Wann-liegt-ein-Verstoss-gegen-das-Markenrecht-vor
- ↑ https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- (Comment also applies to other DRs below.) I'll just leave this diff link here. Together with the previous DR, where OP claimed the file was public domain, it looks to me OP is either very confused or deliberately lying. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --MB-one (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Die Kopie wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. https://www.landkartenarchiv.de/historischestadtplaene2.php?q=landkartenarchiv_berlin_8_1921_v2 mritz (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Das Reprint unterscheidet sich zur Originalkarte (Urheberrecht für Reprints, Copyright: Michael Ritz, Landkartenarchiv.de) mritz (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- OP left this link on the original file: http://www.landkartenarchiv.de/ in a separate speedy tag. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - es ist leider keine Quelle angegeben, so daß man nicht weiß, wo die Datei herkommt und ob der Verlag an dem hier gezeigten Scan Rechte hat oder nicht. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Die Quelle hat Mritz grad entfernt. Die Datei stammte von seiner Landkartenarchiv-Webseite und ist auch heute noch dort online. Nur die URL hat sich anscheinend zwischenzeitlich geändert. --Alexrk2 (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: https://www.landkartenarchiv.de/historischestadtplaene600.php?q=landkartenarchiv_berlin_gross_5_1928 mritz (talk) 08:24, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. According to the log of the file, the file was first deleted and then undeleted on 19 may 2019. The uploader did not respond to a question sent through the VRT system asking "Können Sie mir ein Bild einer Originalkarte zusammen mit einer überarbeiteten Karte senden? Damit können wir überprüfen, ob die Arbeit die Schwelle des Urheberrechtsschutzes überschreitet." mritz, please provide proof and insight which edits you made to show you have obtained copyright on this map which is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. -- Ellywa (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Die Kopie, die hier benutzt wird und von der Bibliothèque nationale de France veröffentlicht wurde und eindeutig unter "Droits: domaine public" steht, darf frei benutzt werden. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAbW (talk • contribs) 13:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. --mritz (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- How can Mritz be the author (copyright holder) of a 1912 map that was digitalized and published by NTM.cz? --Alexrk2 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:08, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Keep As the only evidence is a link that does not work, there has been no explanation as to whether this is a derivative version of a public domain work, or what creativity (if any) is being claimed in the derivative. As the last DR confused trademark law with copyright law, this looks like spamming or copyright trolling. If the latter, the account history is relevant to examine. The file has been restored after ticket:2019031810004396 resulted in no action.
- Ref to other maps currently being challenged Category:Copyright challenges by mritz --Fæ (talk) 17:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Zeige uns doch mal ein paar Beweise für Deine in den Raum gestellten Aussagen auf. Irgendwie kommt mir das arg "g'spinnert" vor. Ein Reprint eines gemeinfreien Werkes würde ausserdem urheberrechtlich gar keinen Unterschied machen (alles andere wäre illegales copyright launderiny). Keep --Mateus2019 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Als 1. habt ihr ohne zu Fragen die Datei von meiner Webseite geklaut. Das Landkartenarchiv ist kein Selbstbedienungsladen. Ich möchte das nicht. Also entfernt endlich meine Datei aus Wikipedia.
- Als 2. schaust du selber mal nach der Marke Pharus nach. Kann man im Internet.
- Ich weiß nicht was hier herumdiskutiert wird. Das Original ist nach 70 Jahren gemeinfrei. Wenn ich vom Original digitalisiere dann entsteht dort keine Kopie. Die Datei wird bearbeitet.
- Dadurch entsteht ein neues Werk.
- ENTFERNEN SIE ENDLICH MEINE DATEIEN AUS WIKIPEDIA. mritz (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Kept: this map is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. Uploader does not show which edits they made to obtain their own copyright. Just digitizing an old map does not give a new copyright, although it might be a lot of tedious work. --Ellywa (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. --mritz (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- To which extend this map was reworked so that it would justify an own copyright? --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
- PS. this map was uploaded from http://chartae-antiquae.cz/en/maps/29861 ..so I wonder how they got a map that was reworked by Mritz?? --Alexrk2 (talk) 12:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: Photographs or reproductions of public domain works that are not transformative in nature are not subject to copyright protection. No valid reason for deletion. --Ìch heiss Nat. Redd mìt mìr.🥨 03:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
spam and advertisment Albert (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mritz, danke für den Hinweis. Leider kann ich erst jetzt darauf reagieren, weil ich in der Klinik war. Es liegt eine Lizenz für die Nutzung dieser Datei vom Lizensgeber Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) vor, die ich am 08.02.2016, mit Rechnung Nr. L-16-0118, käuflich für die Nutzung auf wikipedia erworben habe. Daher bitte ich das deletion request zu stornieren. Eine Kopie der Rechnung kann ich gerne als pdf-Datei übersenden, wenn Sie mir angeben, wohin ich sie senden soll. MfG, Dirk-Franz Dirk-Franz (talk) 18:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:35, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason for deletion. A09090091 (talk) 10:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Behalten. Ich sehe keinen Hinweis darauf, dass diese alte Karte erfolgreich abgemahnt werden könnte. Der Zusammenhang mit dem Markenrecht ist mir bei dieser Karte nicht erkennbar. -- Kürschner (talk) 20:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Kopie (Reprint) eines Pharus-Plan. Der Kartenausschnitt ist aus einem Plan im Landkartenarchiv.de entnommen. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Hallo mritz, bitte erklären Sie, worin Ihre eigene Leistung beim Erstellen dieser Kopie besteht (außer dem Kopieren). Nach Ansicht von Wikipedia ist die Karte aufgrund ihres Alters ansonsten gemeinfrei, egal in wessen Besitz sie sich befindet. -- Kürschner (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- 1.) Erstmal ist es frech einfach ohne Nachzufragen und Genehmigung Dateien aus meiner Webseite zu klauen.
- 2.) Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 dem Original und wurde umfangreich erst digitalisiert, bearbeitet und für das Landkartenarchiv neu hergestellt.
- 3.) In anderen Fällen, hier auf Wikipedia, hat man eine Datei geklaut, deren Rechte (Markenrecht) bei Pharus liegt. Nicht bei mir.
- 4.) Durch den Diebstahl kann jeder die Datei vervielfältigen. Es existiert kein Schutz gegen Vervielfältigung. mritz (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion, PD-old and PD-US. --IronGargoyle (talk) 02:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep This is obviously a more than 90 years old map. Boberger (talk) 12:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- A parallell discussion is ongoing regarding File:Baltiska karta.jpg Boberger (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein fast 120 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This is obviously a more than 90 years old map. Boberger (talk) 12:34, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte, weil die Datei aus der der Ausschnitt stammt OK ist. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein fast 120 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein fast 120 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep kein Löschgrund. --M@rcela 18:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein fast 120 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein fast 120 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Die Information auf der WP-Seite ist nicht so bedeutsam. Dann löschen wir eben vorsorglich. Warum nicht. --Paul - eine Silbersonne (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-2){kind=link}
This file was initially tagged by Mritz as Speedy (Löschen) and the most recent rationale was: Ich bin der Verfasser der überarbeiten Originaldatei, die man hier sehen kann. Mein Copyright der Datei ist von 2016. Es gab keine Genehmigung von mir. Contentdiebstahl im Landkartenarchiv! --mritz (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Converted by me to regular DR, as this case seems to need some discussion. -- Túrelio (talk) 17:33, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- OP left this link on the original file: http://www.landkartenarchiv.de/ in a separate speedy tag. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Kept: procedural keep in favor Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pharus Berlin ca1920.jpg. --Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Die Karte wurde als Ausschnitt einer bereits vorliegenden Datei gezogen. Die Ausgangs-Karte selbst war allerdings auch in anderer Quelle vorhanden. Doch es wurde der Ausschnitt der bereits auf Commons lag gewählt. Diese Karten wären auch bei Geoportal Berlin zu erreichen. Bei Landkarten.de liegen diese Karten ebenfalls ohne Bezug zu Pharus-Verlag. --Paul - eine Silbersonne (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-3){kind=link}
Die Datei ist eine von mir hergestellte Datei eines Pharus-Plan. Die Datei wurde aus dem Landkartenarchiv.de geklaut. Verstoß gegen Copyright. Mein Reprint ist nicht gemeinfrei und darf nicht Kopiert werden. Die Marke Pharus ist außerdem vom Rechteinhaber geschützt. Das Markenrecht ist immer noch aktuell. Es besteht keine Lizenz zur Verwendung des Markennamens Pharus. Bitte sofort löschen. Die Datei entspricht nicht 1:1 zum Original Stadtplans und wurde von mir umfangreich bearbeitet. Ein Stadtplan ist kein Kunstwerk. Quelle: Landkartenarchiv.de mritz (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Kept: this map is PD because the original author, Dr. Cornelius Löwe died more then 70 years ago, in 1932/33. Uploader does not show which edits they made to obtain their own copyright. --Ellywa (talk) 16:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ich habe die Datei vor 14(!) Jahren erstellt und hochgeladen. Auf die Abmahnmafia habe ich auch keine Lust. Traurig, was aus Pharus geworden ist. Der Stadtplanausschnitt ist für keinen Artikel lebensnotwendig. Bitte löscht die Datei. Viele Grüße --Magadan (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Kann meinetwegen gelöscht werden. Ist ja gut, dass da aufgepasst wird.--Mehlauge (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Dabei geht es um Dateien, die vom jetzigen Verlag bereitgestellt werden. Die Firma bietet eigene Scans und Reporduktionen an. Von diesen darf man keine Kopien machen. "Dabei wird ausgeführt, dass die Firma PHARUS-PLAN regelmäßig nur Lizenzen zur Nutzung von Stadtplanausschnitten gegen Entgelt einräumt." [1] - an dem hier gezeigten Scan hat der Verlag keinerlei Rechte. Der Kartograf ist definitiv seit 70 Jahren tot: http://d-nb.info/gnd/130229350 † 1932/33 => vor 85 Jahre verstorben (2019) oder es ist gar keiner angegeben. Bei anonymen und pseudonymen Werken erlischt das Urheberrecht siebzig Jahre nach der Veröffentlichung (UrhG §66). Also keine Panik. Löschantrag abgelehnt. Habe den Verdacht, hier will hat gezielt etwas gegen die Veröffentlichung... --MAbW (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
advertising Albert (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Die Datei ist zwar gemeinfrei aber verstößt gegen Markenrecht wenn keine Genehmigung vorliegt. Pharus-Plan (Bernstengel) mahnt zahlreich Leute mit dieser Argumentation an. Quelle: https://www.recht-hat.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-herr-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-stadtplanausschnitt/, https://www.abmahnungwastun.de/abmahnung-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel/, https://www.ra-juedemann.de/anwalt-urheberrecht-berlin-abmahnung-der-firma-pharus-plan-rolf-bernstengel-wegen-kartennutzung/. Wikipedia könnte jederzeit abgemahnt werden. mritz (talk) 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Wie hier anhand von Links dargelegt wird, liegt sehr wahrscheinlich kein Verstoß gegen das Markenrecht vor, da hier lediglich ein mindestens 90 Jahre alter Stadplanausschnitt hochgeladen wurde, und die Rechte an der Marke PHARUS dadurch nicht verletzt werden... --Gretarsson (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Jcb (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Goodboy 11 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Facebook or smaller files various qualities, no metadata, unlikely own work.
- File:រណ្តាប់ទេវតា.jpg
- File:ព្រះខ័នរាជ្យ .jpg
- File:ប្រាសាទសំរិទ្ធភិមាន.jpg
- File:ព្រះខ័នរាជ្យ.jpg
- File:Preah Ponlea (Place for the During the royal plouging ceremony).jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 20:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Wrong Licence Piotr Bart (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Invalid licence Piotr Bart (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
.jpeg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
unknown persons Adelfrank (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
- Keep On scope for the place and the constellation. The presence of the group there does not interfere with the scope, IMO.-- Darwin Ahoy! 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- In the middlepoint of this picture are three men. It's a nice picture for a family-photo-album but not for an encyclopedia. What's the category? Ursa Major e orsi italiani? Ursa Major with italian bears? Sorry. Delete --Adelfrank (talk) 17:29, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- In the middlepoint of this picture are three men. It's a nice picture for a family-photo-album but not for an encyclopedia. What's the category? Ursa Major e orsi italiani? Ursa Major with italian bears? Sorry.
Kept per Darwin. Strakhov (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpeg){kind=link}
Gallery of headshots of Politicians, unlikely own work due to odd and various sizes, lack of metadata, quality and so on. Two are duplicates with logos added on top, or removed.
- File:Screenshot 20190305-155607 KineMaster.jpg
- File:Ignacio Anaya.jpg
- File:Enrique Acosta Fregoso.jpg
- File:Ignacio Anaya Barriguete.jpg
- File:Mario Gómez.jpg
- File:Frías Castro.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted per nom. COM:PRP. The last one is apparently a derivative work of electoral propaganda. Strakhov (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
File name is wrong Oum13928 (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Oum13928: What is wrong about the file name? I declined your rename request as there was a file called File:Thai Local Road-สค.ถ 4-0003.svg but this was a duplicate of this file (File:Thai Samut Sakhon Local road 4-0003.svg) so now that redirects here. If we can agree on the correct name we can sort this out Gbawden (talk) 09:47, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, unused file, uploader's request. If really useful, then can recreated. Taivo (talk) 08:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
_logo_-_cmyk.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_logo_-_cmyk.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
wrong image size Sermarvs (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
_logo_-_cmyk.png){kind=link}
Deleted, complex logos can be in Commons only with OTRS-permission. Taivo (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
_logo_-_cmyk.png){kind=link}
Files in Category:Bottles of eating oil
[edit]
Ies (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
False license, authorship and date. GAndy (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
False license, authorship and date. GAndy (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
False license, authorship and date. GAndy (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-free Bing map. Hanooz 01:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
This map uses NASA images that are free to use, as shown on the website information section. Jecas04 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Please look at FAQ of the website which states: "Only NASA images (where clouds are visible) are updated daily. Bing Maps images (where buildings are visible) are not updated daily and are several years old". This is a Bing image, not Nasa's work. Hanooz 10:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
File name is wrong Oum13928 (talk) 05:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Low-res photo with no EXIF, based on user’s other uploads, unlikely to be free Ytoyoda (talk) 06:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Ukraine Ymblanter (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Its my work, i uploaded it and I want to remove it 190.17.176.14 19:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Bogus license. IMHO. Not a distant death. E4024 (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
This page doesn't provide any info and being up-loader of this image, I am unable to use the image on real pagfe. up@n$hu 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upanshu upanshu (talk • contribs) 19:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: seems a photo of an old photo, unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
no evidence of release from the company, seems to be more than simple text and shapes ···日本穣Talk to Nihonjoe 21:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Delete Image is the background image located at [2]. Direct link to the image is here. No indication the anywhere that the image is available under the license stipulated. Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well, it was the background image at the time of the deletion nomination. It's been three weeks since. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: no permission. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
perché va rimesso nuovamente Antonio Pirolozzi (talk) 21:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: seems a photo of an old photo, unclear copyright status. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Permission via COM:OTRS required, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Ticket:2019031210006145 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
This image is in the public domain (originally published in 1912). But this file contains a false license, authorship and date. GAndy (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Derivative work of non-free sculpture (see Khamid Savkuev (b. 1964)). Sealle (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
The image includes COM:FOP Sri Lanka such as lotus tower, BOC, lotus theater, etc A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia Ymblanter (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Ymblanter (talk) 11:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per COM:FOP Sri Lanka A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per COM:FOP Sri Lanka A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:16, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per COM:FOP Sri Lanka A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 11:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:17, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
As per COM:FOP Sri Lanka A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Insufficient sourcing to be able to license this image based on statement "Photograph of a Mobro barge by Max Moody, Jr. Moody died in 1987 leaving the legal rights of the photo in public domain." Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019031210006145 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:MobroBargeTugJAX.jpg” under ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket:2019030610009609. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"hotograph of Max Moody III by Max Moody, Jr. Moody died in 1987 leaving the legal rights of the photo in public domain as well as permission from Max Moody III to authorize this photo uploaded to commons." Is an incomplete license. To retain requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019031210006145 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:MDMIII70.jpg” under ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket:2019030610009609. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
"Photograph of Max Moody III by Max Moody, Jr. Moody died in 1987 leaving the legal rights of the photo in public domain as well as permission from Max Moody III to authorize this photo uploaded to commons." is incompatible with Commons licenses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019031210006145 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:MaxMoodyIII50s.jpg” under ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket:2019030610009609. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019031210006145 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 15:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:MDMoodyCranestruck.png” under ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket:2019030610009609. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:36, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is an OTRS email received for “File:Mobromarine1976.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Mobromarine1976.jpg” under ticket:2019030610009609. --Ww2censor (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per ticket:2019030610009609. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Another in the series of Moody Family Photos taken by one or more of the family members, and uploaded to Commons without COM:OTRS, Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019032010007192 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
i want it removed please Obermedia (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
FBMD in metadata, shows it was in and out of Facebook before arriving here. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 15:37, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Poster, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted by Jcb at 21:25, 12 Mai 2019 UTC: Dw no source since 4 May 2019 --Krdbot 00:32, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
According to https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paulo_von_Poser, the artist is still alive, this can't be "own work" of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted, Taivo (talk) 20:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Photograph of Max Moody III, CEO of M.D. Moody & Sons, by Max Moody, Jr. Moody died in 1987 leaving the legal rights of the photo in public domain as well as permission from Max Moody III to authorize this photo uploaded to commons." Is incompatible with available Commons licenses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019051410006772 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - with assumption it will be accepted and not just received. Ellin Beltz (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination - no OTRS permission for 30 days. --Jcb (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
this not my own file Bobby Prabawa (talk) 07:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; copyvio. --Gbawden (talk) 10:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia Ymblanter (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia. Ymblanter (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia Ymblanter (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
no location info, no useful description 84.135.113.81 09:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Delete Not realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Stepro (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
File:Varanus-bitatawa-skull-and-partial-specimen-salvaged-KU-330636-stew-being-prepared-at-Location-2-by-Agta-tribesmen.jpg
[edit]
copyright not clear HappeJ (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: https://zookeys.pensoft.net/articles.php?id=3682 gives the CC license. --Gbawden (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
If this information were ever needed, it could be recreated with text, no reason to retain. Unused and uncategorized. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
The licensing statements are incompatible with the license given. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:38, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely own work, others of this type were claimed to be by the Moody family members themselves. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Has OTRS. --Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Obvious rephotograph of older work, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Obvious rephotograph of older work, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Same Commons:Deletion requests/File:Portraits-of-Vajiralongkorn-and-Bhumibol 20170118 124057cropped.jpg Thyj (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I created to demonstrate a technical problem on wikipedia which has since been fixed. —GoldRingChip (please reply on wp) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRingChip (talk • contribs) 17:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus Ymblanter (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Obviously rephotographed, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
No indication of own work on small low quality image. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:11, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination; found here https://tamil.samayam.com/tamil-cinema/movie-news/velaikkaran-movie-story-is-mine-says-another-director/articleshow/60393800.cms before upload date. --Gbawden (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
It is a club logo and complex enough for a copyright. Uploaded by a COI user did not change the status of copyrighted Matthew hk (talk) 14:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Stifle (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Danny10599 (talk · contribs)
[edit]Historical drawings. Proper author/source and country of origin should be provided and license tags corrected.
EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The chance that any of these are in copyright is quite low: if you read the Wikipedia article all of these images illustrate during the 19th century in Ecuador, which is a Author's death + 70 country. Its next to impossible for someone to have lived, and taken the photo, and pubilshed it more than 120 years later. This kind of aggressive deleting of content without evaluating it first, is why folks find Commons hostile. Sadads (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: Almost certainly out of copyright due to age. --Stifle (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
different users at IT-Wiki are stated for "Source" compared to "Author" and "Licensing". Potentially copyvio. Archie02 (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Good morning, I think it's an error during the upload from it:wiki. The only author of the photo is @Paolo Steffan. Deletion isn't necessary --Torque (talk) 08:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per Torque. Ruthven (msg) 12:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
_Albert_Renger-Patzsch.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_Albert_Renger-Patzsch.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
still under copyright in Germany Mutter Erde (talk) 08:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
_Albert_Renger-Patzsch.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
_Albert_Renger-Patzsch.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Unfortunately there is no freedom of panorama in Georgia Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Keep Some boring plain tiles on the ground and ceiling of a regular metro tunnel. Nothing special. Nothing to be copyrighted, "architecturalwise" (just invented the word :). [Every metro tunnel have similar things, but go see some in Madrid, with artwork on the walls, or in Santiago de Chile (Alcántara Station) Turkish tiles on walls... Another story.] We need no FoP to keep these images, as always, IMHO. --E4024 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a tunnel, this is a single-vault station, which has an architect (not just an engineer),--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep not artistic--Pierpao.lo (listening) 10:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- This is not a tunnel, this is a single-vault station, which has an architect (not just an engineer),--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep If there is even 1% possibility to keep the image (and other users prove that it is). I think we don't need to promote pointless bureaucracy in damage of Wiki. --Ⴂ. ႡႠႪႠႾႠႻႤ★ 17:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think there is 0% chance to keep it. If I summarize the arguments so far they state that the station is trivial and therefore not copyrightable. These arguments have been continuously rejected over the years. You should better lobby your own government to join the civilized neighbors and to introduce the freedom of panorama at least for buildings.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion: nothing copyrightable in the photo. Ruthven (msg) 12:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
The covers of the 2 books on the right (which are beyond de minimis) are made by Laurent de Brunhoff, an living illustrator. BrightRaven (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation, photo is too big to be DM. A.Savin 15:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Файл состоит из тривиального текста и несвободной, но замыленной фотографии. Если этого недостаточно для того, чтобы считать её de minimis, предлагаю наложить на неё тривиальную заглушку вроде чёрного квадрата, в этом случае файл будет состоять только из текста и простой геометрии. Фред-Продавец звёзд (talk) 16:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: photo has been blurred, and is not recognisable. Ruthven (msg) 12:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
The statement in the description line that the photographer owns the license of the logo may result in this image's deletion as being incompatible with available Commons licenses, please see COM:L Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
To retain an image of sculpture requires COM:OTRS permission from the sculptor, the US has no Freedom of Panorama. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Clearly halftoned, not own work of uploader. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: source missing. Ruthven (msg) 12:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Pictures of artworks of living artists uploaded by Piffe63
[edit]User:Piffe63 uploaded the following pictures of artworks of living artists, licensing them as {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}}. However, he is not the copyright owner of the original artwork, nor he can consequently establish the copyright for the derivative work (the photography).
- Artwork of Paolo Cibelli, born on 1949
- File:Al di là dell'eden - Paolo Cibelli.JPG, artwork created on 1997.
- Artworks of Stefano Trapanese, born on 1963
- File:SAN MATTEO E L ANGELO - Stefano Trapanese.jpg, artwork created on 2011.
- File:Conversione di San Pantaleone.JPG, artwork created on 2012.
- File:San Pantaleone 1mb.jpg, artwork created on 2012.
- File:Ciclo pittorico di Stefano Trapanese.JPG, artwork created on 2013.
- Artworks of Mario Carotenuto, born on 1922
- File:Crocifisso - Mario Carotenuto 1967.JPG, artwork created on 1967
- File:Crocifisso - Mario Carotenuto.JPG, artwork created on 1967
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This file has a medium size, and low quality, it portrays "Von Poser" and appears to have been uploaded as part of a promotional effort on Mr. Poser. It is unlikely own work, looks professional. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Also affected File:Von-Poser-no-Martinelli.jpg which is a near duplicate which appears to have suffered a resizing and perhaps color enhancement. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: no copies on the Net and in use. The copy has been deleted per duplicate. Ruthven (msg) 12:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This is image does not have permission to be used. I am the photographer KellyCanova (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Is it taken from here (CR'ed page): https://www.picswe.com/pics/emily-ellyn-bf.html ? --E4024 (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: copyvio. Ruthven (msg) 12:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
This image is not a photo of a person, yet it is described "Photograph of M.D. Moody by Max Moody, Jr. Moody died in 1987 leaving the legal rights of the photo in public domain." The license as stated is incompatible with Commons licenses. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Insufficient license information, whoever owns a photo does not own copyright and there is no indication is was published, or that the photographer died 70+ years ago. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: no valid reason for deletion: source and date were indicated in the page. Ruthven (msg) 12:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Dying does not release copyright to public domain. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
There is no proof that the photographer died 70 years ago. No source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-expired. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Permission via COM:OTRS required, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
The fact that a company is out of business doesn't release copyright and render their stuff "own work". Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Permission via COM:OTRS required, not own work. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Unknown author and date, requires more information to be correctly licensed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: PD-US-expired. Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Full image of product packaging containing images and words Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Not own work, requires COM:OTRS. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Product shot, no permission from Lysol Corp. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Clearly halftoned, permission is incompatible with Commons licenses without more information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Exif data says "screenshot", suggest this is a little close for an amateur, and the file size and quality are very small. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely own work of uploader in 1939. Needs more information about real source. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Copyright violation, claims own work, but then alludes to Dollar General as a source and license holder. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Per COM:FOP Laos, there is no freedom of panorama in Laos and the photo violates sculptor's copyright. Taivo (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Unlikely claim of own work, notice the edges on the photo and gif format. Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
According to his bio on PT wiki, the artist is still alive. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
This image is from pexels.com and the pexels CC0 license has been applied. That license applies to pexel images that were published there until 4 July 2018. Although the image was photographed before that date, there is no indication that the photo was published on pexels before the date of license change. See https://www.pexels.com/photo/adult-art-artisan-artist-1486470/ for the original image page on pexels. Whpq (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- AFAIK Pexels website only provides one date, which is labeled "Photographed on". If that's not good enough, then it seems we will need to remove all Pexels images (and should delete the template), because we can't verify the publication date for any of them? If post-4 July 2018 Pexels pics (under the new license) aren't "free enough" (per prior consensus at VP, AN, and DR, with which I disagree but it's consensus), and we can't verify the date of any upload to Pexels, then we can't use Pexels photos, and perhaps should delete the Pexels-CC-zero template, since any CC0-marked images on Pexels can just be tagged with the usual CC0 template? Levivich (talk) 19:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep That license applies to pexel images that were published there until 4 July 2018. - I see no evidence for this statement. In fact, archive.org indicates it has been CC0 since at least 2014, and probably since its inception.[3] Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pexel moved away from the CC0 license. Their current license is free but includes some commercial restrictions. This image was downloaded from pexels just days ago. Unless one can show that this was published under the earlier CC0 license, then it is not sufficiently free. Pexels licensing has been previously discussed. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pexels CFU. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Well all the images from this user were taken in 2013 or 2014, so it seems implausible to me that this was uploaded afterward. People don't take a bunch of images, keep them around for 4 years while taking no other photos, then publish them all at once. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 17:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Pexel moved away from the CC0 license. Their current license is free but includes some commercial restrictions. This image was downloaded from pexels just days ago. Unless one can show that this was published under the earlier CC0 license, then it is not sufficiently free. Pexels licensing has been previously discussed. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Pexels CFU. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep (uploader) – per the above, I think there is enough evidence that the image was published before 4 July 2018. Levivich (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
- The above is supposition, not evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- The evidence is the "Photographed on" dates. This evidence (that all images uploaded by this author have a "Photographed on" date of 2013–2014) leads me to the conclusion that the images were published before 4 July 2018, for the reasons stated by Magog. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
- The above is supposition, not evidence. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per discussion. Ruthven (msg) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Photo was uploaded on Pexels.com on October 9th, 2018 after Pexles switched from CC0 to their non-free license. 0x0a (talk) 10:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Delete: this is unlikely the own work of the uploader - more information needed - who is the photographer? Ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. Wikipedia draft page says it's a 1921 photo. Abzeronow (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see it being used in any articles. Besides which it would have to be published before 1924 to be in the public domain. There is no evidence of that or the photographer would have to be dead over 70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Uploader added a source. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14415 (that's a 1921 yearbook from Georgia Tech.). Keep since it was published in 1921. Abzeronow (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Uploader added a source. https://smartech.gatech.edu/handle/1853/14415 (that's a 1921 yearbook from Georgia Tech.).
- I don't see it being used in any articles. Besides which it would have to be published before 1924 to be in the public domain. There is no evidence of that or the photographer would have to be dead over 70 years. Ww2censor (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I've checked the claimed source and the 1920 edition but this image is not found in either publication. Abzeronow please provide details of the exact source where this image was published, i.e., document title, url and page number. And please don't remove deletion tags from the media page. That is the job of the closing admin not you. Ww2censor (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- OK, I'll check the claimed source too. I didn't remove the deletion tag though. Abzeronow (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Abzeronow: Please do check the documents and let us know. There is a complete compressed version for each year that is smaller then each section and sorry, you are correct Excel23 removed the deletion tag, not you. Naughty. Ww2censor (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I removed the tag. I corrected the photo source with the right tag (at least I’m pretty sure I did). If I did it incorrect you can add the deletion tag back but the photo is from either 1921 or 1922 so it should be in public domain. I have the original photo and I identified that it was in that time period because the only one I could identify is Leslie on the piano and he was a student in 1921 and 1922.--Excel23 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Telling us exactly where you found this photograph would be very helpful. Looks similar to a photograph on Page 16 of the 1922 Society & Organizations.pdf but that is a different photograph ("Two Hundred and Forty-four" of the 1922 yearbook). Abzeronow (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Excel23: What you have not proven is that the image was published at all. Owning a photo that you think was taken around that time does not verify anything regarding its copyright status. Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known is 120 years from date of creation per https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain. The current license might be good if you can show it was published AND that the publication had no copyright notice. Indeed, as Abzeronow states, a different image probably taken in the same setting maybe even during the same event is published on page 244 of the 1922 publication (link is https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/14420/1922compressed.pdf) but that year's edition has a clear copyright notice. In fact 1921, 22 and 24 have copyright notices. I'm sorry to say that right now public domain in unproven. Ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Since it has a copyright would I be able to use a different license? Or since it has a copyright does it need to be deleted?--Excel23 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- We don't have any evidence it is copyright or not, so cannot assign a license to it until its copyright status has been clarified. So will will probably have to be deleted unless you can find some clarity. Ww2censor (talk) 20:29, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Since it has a copyright would I be able to use a different license? Or since it has a copyright does it need to be deleted?--Excel23 (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
- Excel23: What you have not proven is that the image was published at all. Owning a photo that you think was taken around that time does not verify anything regarding its copyright status. Unpublished works when the death date of the author is not known is 120 years from date of creation per https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain. The current license might be good if you can show it was published AND that the publication had no copyright notice. Indeed, as Abzeronow states, a different image probably taken in the same setting maybe even during the same event is published on page 244 of the 1922 publication (link is https://smartech.gatech.edu/bitstream/handle/1853/14420/1922compressed.pdf) but that year's edition has a clear copyright notice. In fact 1921, 22 and 24 have copyright notices. I'm sorry to say that right now public domain in unproven. Ww2censor (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Telling us exactly where you found this photograph would be very helpful. Looks similar to a photograph on Page 16 of the 1922 Society & Organizations.pdf but that is a different photograph ("Two Hundred and Forty-four" of the 1922 yearbook). Abzeronow (talk) 19:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yes I removed the tag. I corrected the photo source with the right tag (at least I’m pretty sure I did). If I did it incorrect you can add the deletion tag back but the photo is from either 1921 or 1922 so it should be in public domain. I have the original photo and I identified that it was in that time period because the only one I could identify is Leslie on the piano and he was a student in 1921 and 1922.--Excel23 (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination/discussion. Ruthven (msg) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
It's the signature of a living artist. If it must be considered as an artwork, then the file was uploaded with no permission. Ruthven (msg) 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Hi. I am the artist and the artwork is mine. I uploaded it--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 01:23, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ugo Bongarzoni: Hello, we then need a proof of what you're saying, because anyone can say he's the copyright holder of an artwork. Please contact OTRS in order to sort it out. Thanks --Ruthven (msg) 15:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Hi, I'll contact OTRS, for your use the link of my [ personal facebook page/https://www.facebook.com/Ugo.Bongarzoni] with the photos of my artworks.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment@Ruthven: OTRS ticket:2019030910000451 received. --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 08:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Ruthven: Hi, I'll contact OTRS, for your use the link of my [ personal facebook page/https://www.facebook.com/Ugo.Bongarzoni] with the photos of my artworks.--Ugo Bongarzoni (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- There is an OTRS email received for “File:Red_cobra_sign_by_Ugo_Bongarzoni.jpg” but not processed yet, ticket:2019030910000451. Perfect, thank you all. Ruthven (msg) 09:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- I have just accepted permission for “File:Red_cobra_sign_by_Ugo_Bongarzoni.jpg” under ticket:2019030910000451. --Ganímedes (talk) 08:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Kept: per OTRS. Ruthven (msg) 14:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Photographer does not own license to logo depicted and Commons cannot host it without permissions. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:43, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
With the date given as 2015, this image is licensed incorrectly. Otherwise a source beyond "own work" is needed. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I have some doubt about own work here. This is a picture of something to do with the Moody family business, it's very small, faded as if it were from the 1960s and also the cars and streetscape look older, yet it is claimed as 2015 and own work. Uploader uploaded logos and other images of Moody family and business. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
If Mr. Moody died in 1987 as stated on a prior upload, its highly unlikely this image dates from 2015, and requires additional source information. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
This image is clearly halftoned, taken from a publication without attribution. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
The category is given as 1949 deaths, so this picture is unlikely to date to 2015. Proper source information is required. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Gbawden (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Nathaniel Filip (talk · contribs)
[edit]Unlikely claims of own work due to various cameras, lack of cameras, sizes of all sizes, some small, some huge, location of image, dates, and so on.
- File:Togbe Osei III.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a Eva Pilarová.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a Řád sv. Huberta s kardinálem Dominikem Dukou.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a velmistr Řádu sv. Lazara Jeruzalémského.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip po koncertu.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a patriarcha Řehoř III.jpg
- File:Francisco de Borbón von Hardenberg.png
- File:Nathaniel Filip - koncert.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip2.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip s klavíristou.jpg
- File:Řád orla Gruzie - princ David.jpg
- File:Řád orla Gruzie.jpg
- File:Mlynář Jaroslav Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Hrobka - Prokešovi (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Mlynář Josef Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Mlynář Václav Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Zámeček Staré Ždánice (pohled).jpg
- File:Staré ždánice.jpg
- File:Mlýn Staré Ždánice.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Dont understand the problem. When Im on those pictures, they are obviously mine. I do pisctures with my phone, tablet, camera and so on (sizes). And yes, I do travel a lot (locations). Why not? :-) Dates? I always use the date of the day I upload it. Nathaniel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel Filip (talk • contribs) 18:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just because you are in the photos does not give you copyright permissions to upload the images to Commons. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I made those pictures myself. If not, they were made for me and I own them and the person who made it for me does not keep any righs or copies of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel Filip (talk • contribs) 21:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nathaniel Filip: I.e. File:Mlynář Josef Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg: The depicted person died 1938. So you must be arround 100 years old now. On the photos depicting you you realy not looking that age. --JuTa 14:19, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It is obviously a photo i made of an old photo of unown author long time ago and i own this picture now, got it from the grandchildren of the person of the picture. And you can go bully someone else now... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathaniel Filip (talk • contribs) 19:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
- A photo of a photo is a derivatetive work, again please learn about copyright before you upload anything else to commons. Thx. --JuTa 04:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008781 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008806 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008904 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008941 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008968 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910008986 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009083 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009109 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009216 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009225 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009261 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009271 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019050910009305 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ticket:2019051010002005 has been received regarding to file(s) mentioned here. --Krdbot 08:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
One of the files, namely File:Togbe Osei III.jpg, seems to be a cropped version of the photo published at the Royal Godenu website. --Marek BLAHUŠ (talk) 11:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I regrouped the files according to their status in OTRS.
- Pictured by 'a friend'
- File:Nathaniel Filip a Eva Pilarová.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a Řád sv. Huberta s kardinálem Dominikem Dukou.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a velmistr Řádu sv. Lazara Jeruzalémského.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip po koncertu.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip a patriarcha Řehoř III.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip - koncert.jpg
- File:Nathaniel Filip s klavíristou.jpg
These pictures were proclaimed to be made by a friend of pictured person 'without any claims'. Permission from friend was requested but there was no response up to date. File permissions merged into ticket:2019050910008781. Not OK to me.
Update: I have received an email related to these files (ticket:2019070810003952) with acceptable permission from the original author. Per copyright status Keep. --Mates (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Gbawden: Could you also please undelete also these files? Thank you. Nathaniel Filip (talk) 15:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Pictured by professional photographer
These pictures were proclaimed as made by professional photography studio based on pictured person request and copyright was bought. Standard permission was requested but we got no response up to date. Ticket:2019050910009083 and Ticket:2019051010002005 relate to those.
Update: I have received an email related to these files (ticket:2019070810003952) with acceptable permission from the original author. Per copyright status Keep. --Mates (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Mates: I have undeleted the files. Can you please add the OTRS permission to the files? Gbawden (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- Photo of a photo (postcard)
- File:Mlynář Jaroslav Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Mlynář Josef Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Mlynář Václav Prokeš (Staré Ždánice).jpg
- File:Zámeček Staré Ždánice (pohled).jpg
- File:Mlýn Staré Ždánice.jpg
These pictures were stated as photoed old pictured and postcards with unknown author. In my opinion it is not clear whether the author is generally unknown or unknown by the uploader. Ticket:2019050910009216, ticket:2019050910009225, ticket:2019050910009261, ticket:2019050910009271 and ticket:2019050910009234 related. Delete those.
- Own work
According to information in ticket:2019050910009305 this was pictured by the uploader. Fair to me.
- @Mates: And this one too please Gbawden (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
- No information in OTRS
- File:Togbe Osei III.jpg
- File:Francisco de Borbón von Hardenberg.png
- File:Řád orla Gruzie - princ David.jpg
- File:Řád orla Gruzie.jpg
- File:Staré ždánice.jpg
Pinging @Ellin Beltz, JuTa, Blahma, and Nathaniel Filip: involved in this case. --Mates (talk) 08:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you. I am awaiting the closing administrator. Ellin Beltz (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I have deleted all the photos with no OTRS permission (some were already deleted by Jcb). I undeleted three that seem to have OTRS but were deleted by Jcb for having no OTRS after 30 days. Once these have been sorted I will (or another admin can) close this DR Gbawden (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Jcb (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
noise reduction on by accident Øyvind Holmstad (talk) 17:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Ziggy 2milli (talk · contribs)
[edit]Dubious claims of own work on images of men, different styles, lighting and so on, unlikely own work.
Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Object. I work for the same company as Ziggy, and I can confirm that these are Ziggy's own photos. Glumbbali (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
- Then we could use the larger versions as at least two of these are really, really small. Professional photographers usually do not upload images without metadata and of such small file sizes. Ellin Beltz (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: . --Didym (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Порушення авторського права. Невідомо чи була фотографія опублікована анонімно, також невідома дата смерті фотографа. Venzz (talk) 06:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Published 1944. Since the author has remained unknown past the cut-off date (2015), it is public domain. If in the future the unknown author was discovered, the year of death would be irrelevant and it would still be public domain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any proofs of publishing date?--КЛІК (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Photo from the book “Нам не забыть вас ребята“. Publishing date is 1976.--Venzz (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- As one would expect, the image from the more recent book is better quality than grainy/crappy/faded copy from the first publication.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 03:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Photo from the book “Нам не забыть вас ребята“. Publishing date is 1976.--Venzz (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
- Do you have any proofs of publishing date?--КЛІК (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Published 1944. Since the author has remained unknown past the cut-off date (2015), it is public domain. If in the future the unknown author was discovered, the year of death would be irrelevant and it would still be public domain.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. --Well-Informed Optimist (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:KeepOnTruckin'.jpg (or [4] if you want the gory details). Crumb has been quite litigious regarding this image (including suing Amazon). In the '60s this image was reproduced extensively without authorization, which is likely the situation with this poster as well. I hate to 2nd guess the LOC, but I think this one would be too risky to keep without evidence that it was an authorized reproduction. Kaldari (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Unless and until LOC receives a take down notice or revises their statement. No need to second guess. --Fæ (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: Wouldn't that be against COM:PRECAUTION? funplussmart (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- We sometimes take the approach of asking why Commons should take down images on some doubt, when there is no understanding of why the source has not had a take down. With regard to PRP, the assessment should be whether the doubt is significant doubt, or comes below that level; for me, I'd rather see us take a stand and rely on the releases of (huge) sites like LOC more often, rather than acting as if we know more about copyright than their experts do... --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree with Fæ, but Crumb won an actual copyright lawsuit about this specific image and the court declared that his copyright to it is still valid despite unauthorized reproductions. Plus we know that Crumb is using that decision to sue other websites that are using this image. Thus it's hard for us to claim with a straight face that it is safe for re-use. I imagine that the LOC was not aware of the lawsuit and based their assessment solely on the fact that the poster had no copyright notice (which in most situations would be adequate). Kaldari (talk) 00:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
- We sometimes take the approach of asking why Commons should take down images on some doubt, when there is no understanding of why the source has not had a take down. With regard to PRP, the assessment should be whether the doubt is significant doubt, or comes below that level; for me, I'd rather see us take a stand and rely on the releases of (huge) sites like LOC more often, rather than acting as if we know more about copyright than their experts do... --Fæ (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
- @Fæ: Wouldn't that be against COM:PRECAUTION? funplussmart (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Keep: In the Robert Crumb interview at India's comi-con, Mr. Crumb expressly gives permission to the public to use the image as public domain. In this interview published in youtube in four parts and recorded in 2012, He discusses at length the legal troubles regarding the image, how he lost and gained back its copyright, and how and why he decided to gift it to the public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.77.173.9 (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: The Yanker Poster Collection should be viewed with caution. While a LOC staffer examined posters with respect to copyright notice, several of the posters are likely derivative works, using existing (previously published) news photographs, artwork, etc. e.g. I believe him, Viva Cuba and Viva Portugal. The underlying images may or may not have fallen into public domain. The LOC rights page cautions "Many posters, particularly those published outside of the U.S., lack sufficient information to determine copyright status". Some are clearly copyrighted (and noted as such) like Who needs you. I have no doubt on the freedom of other images in the collection unless there is significant doubt based on credible evidence to the contrary. With regards to the Crumb poster at hand, the LOC's position is simply "No known restrictions on publication. Published without copyright notice." The LOC doesn't explicitly declare it as PD. Given that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals expressly removed this image from Public Domain in 1977, I think there is sufficient evidence that this image is not public domain in the US, regardless of what was or wasn't stamped on posters (note the image originally appeared in a comic book). A court decision constitutes significant doubt of freedom per precautionary principle. The creator Robert Crumb is still living, and I see no other credible claims to public domain status in any country. --Animalparty (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and per User:Animalparty. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:20, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Cheri Brown (talk · contribs)
[edit]Gallery of files about "Kent-Tate" but unlikely own work due to size, quality and strange resizing issues.
- File:Kent-Tate-Museum-of-Post-Habitation.jpg
- File:Kent-Tate-movies-for-a-pulsing-earth.jpg
- File:Kent-tate-stalker.jpg
- File:Kent-Tate-filming-lava.jpg
Ellin Beltz (talk) 17:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- File:Kent-Tate-filming-lava.jpg has a reviewed Cc-by-4.0 license, and the other three files have the same source. I don't see any CC license on the source page today, but maybe Howcheng recalls what they saw when they checked the license. There's a relatively new w:en:Kent Tate page, I'll add the four images to it for a good "INUSE" decision here. –84.46.53.12 23:30, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember anything about this, and the page is not archived in the Wayback Machine, so that's no help either. —howcheng {chat} 05:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've reverted my other IP on w:en:Kent Tate (gallery removed). –84.46.52.129 19:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- There is a problem that at least one photo is given credit to " Photo: Miki Toma" in the description, but we don't have permission from the photographer even if the photos were on some website somewhere. And one assumes Mr. Tate himself has not been dead 70 years, so his permission would be needed as well. Ellin Beltz (talk) 23:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've reverted my other IP on w:en:Kent Tate (gallery removed). –84.46.52.129 19:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't remember anything about this, and the page is not archived in the Wayback Machine, so that's no help either. —howcheng {chat} 05:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: no longer possible to confirm license, moreover they are of very low quality, hardly usable. Kept one with reviewed license (trusting that User:Howcheng was diligent at the time). P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Aleister Crowley hasn't been dead long enough for this tp be public domain, if indeed it is what it claims to be. Ellin Beltz (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment Aleister Crowley died in 1947. But I also share your doubts that Crowley is the author. Abzeronow (talk) 16:08, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. P 1 9 9 ✉ 14:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Taken from Indonesian WP where I could not see the source. E4024 (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. No evidence this was ever under a proper license. --Majora (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Media in Category:Unreviewed photos of GODL-India
[edit]Deletion requested under the following grounds:
- All these files are images, e.g. in jpg/png formats. This is a data license; image formats are not included in the approved list.
- This license is applicable, only for Govt-generated data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform. If not originally released on the OGD platform (https://data.gov.in) by the originator department under this licence, it is not applicable.
- None of these files were published in the OGD platform; and all are in non-compatible formats.
- Detailed discussion of the relevant license rules can be seen at the end of the template talk page.
Hrishikes (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There are currently 2,568 files in this category, but many files which have been approved are in the same case. Category:GODL-India has currently 125,295 files. Yann (talk) 09:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- See Template talk:GODL-India. Yann (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I mentioned this on COM:VPC#Government Open Data License - India. Yann (talk) 09:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment The files should be tagged and listed here. Reviewed & approved files should not be in this category. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment As to the first item, the license says: “Data” means a representation of information, numerical compilations and observations, documents, facts, maps, images, charts, tables and figures, concepts in digital and/or analog form, and includes metadata, that is all information about data, and/or clarificatory notes provided by data provider(s), without which the data concerned cannot be interpreted or used. And one of the things not included are official insignia, inherently image-like objects, so I think images are included just fine, despite the formats list. Presumably they did not need to list image formats as most all of them are already open (and things like maps, also explicitly listed, would not fall into that format list either). To me, as long as the license validly applied to images (be it explicitly or through the OGD platform), they should be OK. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- There are actually a set of three documents: the policy, the Impletentation Guidelines, and the license. All the practical aspects are dealt with in the Imp. Guidelines. Definition of data in the license includes images, because images can form part of a data set. Isolated images are excluded because image formats are not part of the approved list. Approved formats are given in Section 3.2 of the Imp. Guidelines; please have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The legal code is the license, and just the license. It says images are included in the definition of "data", whenever you see the word "data" used. They are not excluded. Implementation guidelines do not alter the license. Images can be licensed under that, just like maps. The data format stuff is just for those types of data applicable to those formats -- and are labeled *guidelines*, not absolute rules. So images *can* be licensed, as can maps, as far as I can see. The policy may cover when the license applies. But nothing in the guidelines would alter the license, I don't think, so the format stuff is a red herring to me. Now, the license does include images protected by trademark and other intellectual property laws, and I do wonder if publicity rights are included in that for photos of people. But images are expressly included in the types of works it is possible to license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- How are you defining "legal code"? This is not law, not being enacted by the Parliament. This is just a free license from various departments of the Govt. of India. Implementation Guidelines do not alter the license, true enough. But this Guidelines is the manual for Govt departments, signifying that no isolated image, in jpg/png format, has so far been released under GODL. The license may have provision for it, as you say, but it has not been practically done (Govt departments won't and can't violate the Guidelines issued by the nodal agency). Hrishikes (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- A copyright license is the legal framework for a re-user. Those determine the actual rules. If an entity which owns copyright says "this image is licensed under the GODL", then it's licensed under those terms, and the guidelines have nothing to do with that. There is nothing in the license which prevents images from being licensed, in fact they are explicitly allowed. The guidelines are more that data (which can be) should be in machine-readable formats as much as possible, not say image scans of data and not proprietary formats (such as Excel). I don't think those concerns typically arise with images, where the typical formats are already as open as you need. The guidelines do not define what can and cannot be licensed -- just best practice for when you are providing data under the license.
- Basically, I don't think the guidelines or any of its text enters into the deletion discussion here at all, unless something in the policy or license expressly names limitations which the guidelines can define. The question to me is mainly does that license (which is free) actually apply to the works. The policy probably does indicate what works may be assumed to be under that license by default, though it's always possible for someone to apply that license regardless (provided they have the legal rights to do so -- if authority was delegated to individual departments, etc.). That is probably the area I'd focus on, and I have not read the policy in-depth, so I'm not really sure. There could be questions on any images covered by other intellectual property rights, per the license. But in general, the license defines the term "data" (wherever that word is used) to also include images, and maps. It is not at all limited to data you can put in a CSV file. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was talking about practicalities. If Govt departments are not allowed to release isolated images under GODL (#3.2 of I.G.) or they are not allowed to release anything under GODL outside the OGD platform (#4.0 of I.G.), then how would that legal framework of the license come into play? And then how can we assume that items not originally published in OGD site are under GODL? Other Govt websites (other than OGD) enjoy Govt copyright over their products under #17(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, valid for 60 years. If those items (except as provided under #52(1)(q) of ICA), are reproduced in Commons, that would amount to infringement of copyright as provided by the ICA. How can we assume that an executive notification like GODL can supersede an act of the Parliament like the ICA so that reproducing scores of images from various non-OGD Govt websites, without any explicit release under GODL, won't amount to copyright infringement? Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- To me, nothing in the guidelines determines what they are allowed or not allowed to do. They are *guidelines*. If there is something in the *policy*, i.e. the government is not delegating copyright authority in particular situations, then that could be different. But nothing in the guideline is a rule or has any real legal effect, as far as I can tell. Provided a department has copyright authority, they can release under the GODL or any other license they wish, whether that is through the OGD or not. That is just the preferred way, as far as I can tell. Nothing in the guidelines can restrict copyright, unless that is expressly part of the license. The policy would determine when the license applies, or can apply, I would imagine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The term "guideline" is merely officialese; it is mandatory for the Govt departments, and has been provided for in #12(c) of the policy. I think you won't be able to show even a single image, in png/jpg, to be explicitly licensed under GODL by the originator department. None of the images under the deletion proposal was explicitly licensed under GODL. So please explain why the copyright infringement provisions of the Indian Copyright Act won't apply. Hrishikes (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't read it that way at all. The policy requires departments to provide data sets under that license on data.in.gov, but it also says that the data is still owned and managed by each department, so I don't see any other limitation on what a department can do. 12(c) of the policy simply says that guidelines will be produced, but does not confer any additional rulemaking to it. The argument for deletion is basically, are the files licensed under a free license. The license *can* apply to images, so if the license applies, it is fine. The guidelines do not determine that whatsoever. Now, it may well be that we can only assume the license for stuff downloaded from data.gov.in. They have an "infographics" section there, so those .pngs are licensed fine. But it may well be that we can't simply assume the license for data from anywhere else. But if a department, in addition to stuff they supply to data.gov.in, also explicitly licenses works under the GODL separately, that should be OK, since it appears they do have copyright authority over their own works. But we would have to show that I think, and can not be assumed this applies to all government works. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The term "guideline" is merely officialese; it is mandatory for the Govt departments, and has been provided for in #12(c) of the policy. I think you won't be able to show even a single image, in png/jpg, to be explicitly licensed under GODL by the originator department. None of the images under the deletion proposal was explicitly licensed under GODL. So please explain why the copyright infringement provisions of the Indian Copyright Act won't apply. Hrishikes (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- To me, nothing in the guidelines determines what they are allowed or not allowed to do. They are *guidelines*. If there is something in the *policy*, i.e. the government is not delegating copyright authority in particular situations, then that could be different. But nothing in the guideline is a rule or has any real legal effect, as far as I can tell. Provided a department has copyright authority, they can release under the GODL or any other license they wish, whether that is through the OGD or not. That is just the preferred way, as far as I can tell. Nothing in the guidelines can restrict copyright, unless that is expressly part of the license. The policy would determine when the license applies, or can apply, I would imagine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I was talking about practicalities. If Govt departments are not allowed to release isolated images under GODL (#3.2 of I.G.) or they are not allowed to release anything under GODL outside the OGD platform (#4.0 of I.G.), then how would that legal framework of the license come into play? And then how can we assume that items not originally published in OGD site are under GODL? Other Govt websites (other than OGD) enjoy Govt copyright over their products under #17(d) of the Indian Copyright Act, valid for 60 years. If those items (except as provided under #52(1)(q) of ICA), are reproduced in Commons, that would amount to infringement of copyright as provided by the ICA. How can we assume that an executive notification like GODL can supersede an act of the Parliament like the ICA so that reproducing scores of images from various non-OGD Govt websites, without any explicit release under GODL, won't amount to copyright infringement? Hrishikes (talk) 16:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- How are you defining "legal code"? This is not law, not being enacted by the Parliament. This is just a free license from various departments of the Govt. of India. Implementation Guidelines do not alter the license, true enough. But this Guidelines is the manual for Govt departments, signifying that no isolated image, in jpg/png format, has so far been released under GODL. The license may have provision for it, as you say, but it has not been practically done (Govt departments won't and can't violate the Guidelines issued by the nodal agency). Hrishikes (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- The legal code is the license, and just the license. It says images are included in the definition of "data", whenever you see the word "data" used. They are not excluded. Implementation guidelines do not alter the license. Images can be licensed under that, just like maps. The data format stuff is just for those types of data applicable to those formats -- and are labeled *guidelines*, not absolute rules. So images *can* be licensed, as can maps, as far as I can see. The policy may cover when the license applies. But nothing in the guidelines would alter the license, I don't think, so the format stuff is a red herring to me. Now, the license does include images protected by trademark and other intellectual property laws, and I do wonder if publicity rights are included in that for photos of people. But images are expressly included in the types of works it is possible to license. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- There are actually a set of three documents: the policy, the Impletentation Guidelines, and the license. All the practical aspects are dealt with in the Imp. Guidelines. Definition of data in the license includes images, because images can form part of a data set. Isolated images are excluded because image formats are not part of the approved list. Approved formats are given in Section 3.2 of the Imp. Guidelines; please have a look. Hrishikes (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Clindberg: -- So, in your opinion, departments, being owners, can release their data outside the NDSAP under GODL, including even isolated images, and GODL can be assumed when the data is downloaded from the OGD platform, but not assumable when from other sites. And the Implementation Guidelines is "best practice" only, because #12(c) of the policy did not make it mandatory. So I'll answer one-by-one.
- GODL is part of NDSAP, see the heading of the GODL notification. Therefore, if data is published outside the NDSAP, this license is not applicable. Owner departments can definitely publish their data outside the NDSAP, but then they cannot use the license of NDSAP.
- GODL cannot be "assumed" even in the OGD platform. It is explicitly stated even there. See this example: 1. You will see this declaration on the left side Catalog Info pane, "Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)". This declaration must exist for GODL to apply, even in the OGD platform.
- The Implementation Guidelines is not "best practice". In your words, "But nothing in the guideline is a rule or has any real legal effect, as far as I can tell." No, the guideline is not a "rule". In India, "Rules" specify the implementation of an "Act", e.g. s:Index:Indian Copyright Rules 2013.djvu. The I.G. provides for the implementation of a Policy; so it cannot be declared as a Rule. Like the policy, it is executive, not legislative. So, yes, no legal effect. Does not mean that it can be bypassed. It can have disciplinary effect for Govt. employees in case of violation, being a directive from higher authority. Specifically mentioning it as mandatory is superfluous. If you think that the I.G. does not matter and should not feature in a deletion discussion, then examples should be provided (specified below) to prove that the I.G. can be bypassed.
- The purpose of the GODL license has been explained at the end of #1 (Preamble) of the license notification: While, the appropriate open formats and related aspects for implementation of the Policy has been defined in the "NDSAP Implementation Guidelines" prepared by an inter-ministerial Task Force constituted by the National Informatics Centre, the open license for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform remained unspecified till now. This clarifies as under:
- Appropriate formats are given in the IG. (Footer link given to #3.2 of I.G.)
- After IG was issued, only the license remained unspecified, and then the notification proceeds to specify it.
- GODL is "the open license for data sets published under NDSAP and through the OGD Platform". That is what had remained unspecified, and that is what the GODL notification specifies.
- If you disagree to the above, then you should come up with examples
- where an image (png/jpg) has been explicitly licensed under GODL
- where anything at all has been explicitly licensed under GODL outside the purview of NDSAP.
- Anyway, as you also concurred that GODL is not assumable if data is from non-OGD sites; and as all the images under the deletion proposal are from non-OGD sites, without any explicit release under NDSAP, so, can it be presumed that you have no objection to this particular deletion proposal? If not, then please specify your objections to this particular proposal.
Hrishikes (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment There is no real difference between files not yet reviewed, and files already reviewed (i.e. Category:GODL-India). So the title of the DR is a bit misleading. This discussion concerns all files currently on Commons under the GODL. These files are from the Indian Navy and Army forces, the Archaeological Survey of India, the Reserve Bank of India (currency), the Indian Space Research Organisation, etc. AFAIK, none of these files come from https://data.gov.in Regards, Yann (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Hrishikes: GODL is a copyright license, pure and simple. A copyright owner can choose to use that to copyright works they have the right to license. There is nothing in the wording of that license which says it can only be used under NDSAP, just that it was created for that purpose. The license also explicitly can apply to images, by its own wording. There is nothing in the wording which makes it inapplicable to any sort of work, really -- it is a free license, pure and simple. If a copyright owner chooses to apply it, the work is free and is fine here. Any license can absolutely be used standalone unless there are restrictions delineated, and the only restrictions are given in sections 4 and 7 of the license. The wording in the guidelines cannot be read the same way as a license -- if the license applies, the work is free, regardless of any text in the guidelines. The preamble of the license does mention the policy, but mentions no restrictions based on it -- simply that it was the reason for the license being created.
- Now, it may be that the policy and guidelines speak to whether the work was likely to actually be licensed, given that both would govern behavior of the departments. The statement "Released Under: National Data Sharing and Accessibility Policy (NDSAP)" does certainly imply that the GODL applies, but it is not necessary as far as I can tell -- I see nothing in the license which says that is mandatory. data.gov.in also states that All datasets/resources including metadata published on data.gov.in are licensed under the Government Open Data License - India -- so that is an explicit statement. Maybe the infographics are not "resources", but that is a blanket license for that site, certainly, and the default assumed license for any datasets or resources. The policy itself states that it was intended to apply to all sharable non-sensitive data available either in digital or analog forms but generated using public funds by various Ministries / Departments / Subordinate offices / organizations / agencies of Government of India. Remember, the word "data" (again per policy definition) includes documents, maps, images, charts, and items in analog form. So anything in that list can be licensed under the GODL under the policy. That does also seem to say the policy could apply no matter where the data is, which may be behind a lot of the assumptions on licensing here. I'm not completely sure we should assume that it basically applies to all government works though. I'm sure you have more understanding of actual practice than me in India, but really the license alone defines the "free" aspect of the work, and I see nothing in there which makes restrictions based on wording of the policy or guidelines. It mentions them, but the actual rights being conferred do not seem to be restricted based on them. The policy and guidelines, to me, more speak to what we can assume that the license applies to by default. But a copyright owner can certainly use any license it wants (CC-BY-SA, GODL, etc.) to license works it owns, so if they did explicitly apply it, the works should be fine. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- What you are saying is mere theorizing. Saying again and again that it can happen does not make it true. So many things can happen. Asteroids can strike the earth, earthquakes can happen, tsunamis can happen, dinosaurs can be cloned. When they actually happen, then only they become facts, not in the stage of can happen. Your theorizing is also like that. GODL can be standalone outside NDSAP, isolated images can be licensed under GODL - these are mere theory. Maybe they can happen, but they are not actually happening. They are not practically true as long as you do not come up with proofs. Irrespective of any blanket license in the OGD platform, uploader departments follow the system of explicit release under NDSAP -- I have given you proof of that. If you cannot come up with evidence (as I have already specified) in support of your theory, then I fail to see how your theorizing is relevant to a practical matter like whether to keep or delete files. Therefore my humble request to you is that you should look for some evidence that what you are speculating is actually happening. And till then, please desist from unnecessary and useless theorizing. Till you offer contrary evidence, the following are the facts:
- Files do not get licensed under GODL if not originally published in the OGD platform. Therefore no such file exists.
- Images in png/jpg format do not get licensed under GODL. Therefore no such image exists.
- Government departments follow the system of explicit release under NDSAP/GODL (proof given). Therefore, when NDSAP/GODL is not explicit, it cannot be assumed.
- NDSAP is being implemented in a phased manner. In spite of a larger scope in policy/license, the government departments are currently uploading the following types of data under NDSAP/GODL (#3.1 of the Implementation Guidelines):
- 1. Primary Data e.g. Population Census, Education Census, Economic Survey, etc.
- 2. Processed/Value Added Data e.g. Budget, Planning, etc.
- 3. Data Generated through delivery of Government Services e.g. Income Tax Collection, MNREGA wage distribution etc.
- Although the policy/license is sufficiently broad-spectrum for future needs, data other than the above are not currently uploaded under this policy. Therefore, data that do not fit into the above three categories are currently not under GODL.
- Therefore, all files under current proposal are suitable for deletion.
- Hrishikes (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Hrishikes: Hi,
- As I have mentioned above, the title of this DR is a bit misleading. Could you please confirm if your DR applies to all files already licensed under the GODL on Commons, as none of these files come from https://data.gov.in.
- Most of the pictures under GODL we already have come from the Navy, Army, and Air Force departments. These already had a near free license before the creation of GODL, so it seems only a clarification and generalisation of the licensing policy of these departments.
- You must address these points in your arguments. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: -- I am now traveling. I'll respond later after studying the matter. Regards. Hrishikes (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: -- I have checked those three websites.
- Given at https://www.indianarmy.nic.in/home: Copyright © 2019 ADG PI. All rights reserved.
- Given at https://www.indiannavy.nic.in/: Content Owned, Updated and Maintained by Indian Navy. Copyright © Since 1999. All Rights Reserved.
- Given at http://indianairforce.nic.in/: Copyright © 2019 Indian Air Force, Government of India. All Rights Reserved.
- However, the Air Force has a copyright policy:
COPYRIGHT POLICY
Material featured on this site may be reproduced free of charge in any format or media without requiring specific permission. This is subject to the material being reproduced accurately and not being used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Where the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material does not extend to any material on this site, which is identified as being the copyright of a third party. Authorisation to reproduce such material must be obtained from the copyright holders concerned.
- There are restrictions within the above policy, so compatibility with our projects need to be assessed. Derivatives are not allowed, except format change. Use in "misleading context" is prohibited, which probably includes commercial use. So it is basically ND-NC.
- I did not find equivalent Army or Navy policy. Please give links.
- Anyway, these policies cannot be put under the name "GODL". There is no evidence that GODL has been used as a stand-alone license, outside NDSAP, by Govt departments. So, the language of these copyright policies can be used to create another template and given a suitable name (say, EdictGov-India-Military or something of the sort, although these are not edicts).
- My DR is for the category as mentioned in the title, but, by extension, it will apply to other GODL-licensed media here, I think.
- Please also see Template talk:GODL-India#Some expert opinion.
- Regards. Hrishikes (talk) 02:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Yann: -- I have checked those three websites.
- @Yann: -- I am now traveling. I'll respond later after studying the matter. Regards. Hrishikes (talk) 07:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- What you are saying is mere theorizing. Saying again and again that it can happen does not make it true. So many things can happen. Asteroids can strike the earth, earthquakes can happen, tsunamis can happen, dinosaurs can be cloned. When they actually happen, then only they become facts, not in the stage of can happen. Your theorizing is also like that. GODL can be standalone outside NDSAP, isolated images can be licensed under GODL - these are mere theory. Maybe they can happen, but they are not actually happening. They are not practically true as long as you do not come up with proofs. Irrespective of any blanket license in the OGD platform, uploader departments follow the system of explicit release under NDSAP -- I have given you proof of that. If you cannot come up with evidence (as I have already specified) in support of your theory, then I fail to see how your theorizing is relevant to a practical matter like whether to keep or delete files. Therefore my humble request to you is that you should look for some evidence that what you are speculating is actually happening. And till then, please desist from unnecessary and useless theorizing. Till you offer contrary evidence, the following are the facts:
- @Hrishikes and Clindberg: We have {{Indian navy}} which is rather deprecated in favor of GODL. There also were numerous discussions about the Air Force and similar policies, and it is understood that the restriction is not a copyright restriction. Until now there is a consensus that the GODL applies to content from http://pib.nic.in/. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah... many of the files licensed GODL were converted from other licenses. Those may be preferable to convert back. It's somewhat understandable given the purported scope of the NDSAP policy, but I'm not sure there is an indication that the policy is an automatic license of copyright. Rather, it seems to be a process which includes vetting for personal information and other stuff, and only after that vetting would something be licensed. I think anything marked "released under NDSAP" can be assumed to be under the GODL now, but really I do not see any specific mention of that license other than data.gov.in, so I'm not sure we can really assume the license. If there is consensus that we can treat such statements as GODL then OK I suppose, but the GODL is a specific license and those statements are really a different license. I would prefer a pretty wide consensus to leave those as GODL.
- It does seem as though the copyright policy on several government websites has changed to something like the Indian Air Force one above, which may also be a reaction to the general direction of government copyrights. I would tend to agree that is a free license -- I do not read it as preventing derivative works. Indeed, "reproduction" as defined in Indian copyright law covers several types of derivative works. "Adaptation" is defined separately, and it may be arguable that the statement does not cover those, but adaptations are somewhat nonsensical for photographs in the first place as the law defines that mostly in terms of dramatic, literary, and musical works. As for the "derogatory manner", that is absolutely a reference to moral rights, not the economic right, and is a non-copyright limitation. Per the Berne convention Article 6bis, which defines moral rights, Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation. So that restriction seems to simply be claiming their moral rights and nothing more. While we do prefer licensing statements to mention derivative works, often because authors don't fully consider that aspect, to me that is not as much a concern with a carefully-considered government website. Technically, if you allow reproduction with no qualifiers, you allow reproduction in commercial uses too, and reproduction of expression in derivative works. It would be better to have the word "adaptation" mentioned, but for photographs I'm not sure it's strictly necessary.
- In general, I completely disagree that png/jpg files cannot be licensed under the GODL. However, I would tend to agree that the current NDSAP process is not targeting that type of data, so those are unlikely to have come through the process to be licensed GODL -- we should be able to point to a source which specified the license. I think anything which was converted from another license to GODL should be switched back, unless we get some guidance from the Indian government that we can make that assumption, or a wide consensus here says we should. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I hope to have more authoritarive opinions by the beginning of July. There is no urgency to close this anyway. Regards, Yann (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Hrishikes: you didn't read the implementation guidelines correctly. 3.2 only provides a recommendation. Formats should be open. (not closed) For images, this isn't much of an issue because the patents for JPG and GIF already expired and PNG and WEBP are open. Nobody uses JPEG2000 (and it's kinda shit anyway) and w:High Efficiency Image File Format wasn't a thing in 2014. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:44, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: -- It appears to me that you did not go through earlier discussions. I am getting weary, having to discuss the same points again and again. Anyway, here goes.
- The term recommended is appropriate here. A term like directed is generally used in a communication from a higher office or formation, to a lower office under its administrative command. But a "nodal agency" is subject-specific. Its superior hierarchy to its sister agencies is only in a specific subject. There is no administrative command, only subject-specific operational command. Therefore, polite words like "recommended", "requested", etc. are used. This kind of wording is otherwise known as officialese. The Implementation Guidelines is not a communication to the general public. It is an inter-departmental communication to the implementing agencies, i.e., other government departments. So the language is appropriate. It does not mean that other departments can deviate from the given guideline at will. If any department wants to deviate, they will need to get special permission or approval from the nodal agency (NIC) for doing so.
- No department has deviated so far. Even within the OGD platform (for which the GODL license was created), every dataset is explicitly released under the NDSAP, the policy under which the license operates. No file has been released outside the OGD platform, by the originator department, under GODL. If you disagree, give a single example, where anything has been explicitly released under GODL outside the data.gov.in website. A single example will suffice.
- Copyright expiry of image formats has no relevance for this discussion. The discussion is about whether anything in png/jpg format has actually been released, explicitly, under GODL. [Explicit release is done even within the OGD platform (irrespective of whether explicitness is required for every file, this is the system followed).] There has been no such release. If you disagree, give an example of a single item, in png/jpg, released explicitly under GODL by the originator department. A single example will suffice.
- Hrishikes (talk) 03:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: -- It appears to me that you did not go through earlier discussions. I am getting weary, having to discuss the same points again and again. Anyway, here goes.
- Wouldn't this image be under the license? (From here.). Or does that not count as a "resource" on the data.in.gov site?
- In general though, I tend to agree that images outside of data.gov.in almost certainly have never been tagged with the GODL license. It would seem that most of them have been switched from other licenses, which are probably free but a bit more nebulous, so sometimes get challenged. We should probably switch those back. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- That is not uploaded by originator department, but a blog written by site admin (OGD PMU Team). The dataset link is "explicitly" given in the blog: 1. That is the item released under GODL and that is in CSV format. In the homepage of the OGD platform, you will find two different copyright notices:
- © 2012-2015 GOVERNMENT OF INDIA : All rights reserved except published datasets/resources and metadata.
- All datasets/resources including metadata published on data.gov.in are licensed under the Government Open Data License - India
- Dataset link is specified in the blog. So the blog itself is not a dataset. Whole of it, including the image, is copyrighted, as per sl. no. 1 above, and not under GODL. Hrishikes (talk) 06:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a dataset sure, but why isn't it a resource ? It even says "resource title" at the bottom, which matches the title of that page, not the dataset. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- Resource means datasets and apps, as per #7.2 of the Imp. Guidelines. Hrishikes (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- It's not a dataset sure, but why isn't it a resource ? It even says "resource title" at the bottom, which matches the title of that page, not the dataset. Carl Lindberg (talk) 06:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- @Clindberg: -- That is not uploaded by originator department, but a blog written by site admin (OGD PMU Team). The dataset link is "explicitly" given in the blog: 1. That is the item released under GODL and that is in CSV format. In the homepage of the OGD platform, you will find two different copyright notices:
- Comment we must have a set of websites clearly specified whether it falls under GODL-INDIA or no. Also since India has federal system of Government, does State Government sites also come under GODL-INDIA?. (This is regarding File:Chaudhary Jagjit Singh.png which I came across while reviewing) --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 12:18, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
- Doing a Google search, I was unable to find any reference to the license except on data.in.gov, other than documents specifically about the open data program. I think other levels of government are supposed to follow the procedures generally, but nothing is automatically under the GODL from the sounds of it -- each department reviews items and ones meeting the criteria get released. I don't think there is any automatic application of the license. And it sounds like they can review stuff gradually. So, like the UK's OGL, you'd have to actually see something explicitly released under the license -- nothing can be assumed. I believe most uploads here currently using that license were switched from other, probably valid licenses though, under the assumption the GODL was automatic, which I think is the core problem. They need to be switched back, in my opinion. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Procedural close: This is an overly broad request to delete images that even if {{GODL-India}} is invalid other licenses would be acceptable. Just one of many examples I could find: File:Admiral Karambir Singh, PVSM, AVSM, ADC.jpg would fit under {{Indian navy}} if GODL is not correct. To delete them all right now when many of them would be fine under a different license would be an immense detriment to Commons. There is also continued discussion on Template talk:GODL-India. For the time being the only proper way to close this discussion is with no action while continued discussion continues. If consensus arises that shows that these images are not ok then a DR can be reopened and dealt with quickly after otherwise acceptable images are weeded out. --Majora (talk) 02:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
