Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2012/10/27
 |
This is an archive, please do not edit. Post new cases at Commons:Deletion requests. You can visit the most recent archive here. |
 |
|
|
,_AVSM_COAS,_Armoured_Corps,_Deccan_Horse_-13th_Chief_of_Army_Staff.jpg){kind=link}
![68 File:Title Card To, " Its Halloween Again, Charlie Brown.jpg](#File:Title_Card_To,_"_Its_Halloween_Again,_Charlie_Brown.jpg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_January_2010-tiny.jpg){kind=link}
_January_2010-small.jpg){kind=link}
I made a mistake while trying to make a category:Aiouea Wer?Du?! (talk) 01:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Next time please use {{Speedy}} . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Disputing the uploader's "own work". This image is a crop of a commercial image. See this page as an example. Senator2029 03:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Excellent. You found the source. I suspected it might be a copyvio, but gave it the benefit of the doubt until the source turned up. Since we've located the source that proves it's a copyvio, let's not even waste our time with a full DR, and just speedy it. I've located a better, demonstrably free pic to replace it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy deleted as copyvio. January (talk) 13:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Speedy because of probable copyvio Lymantria (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is my OLD photograph and I do not intent to use it anymore. VoiceOverArtiste (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Delete Was contacted by the apparent subject on enwiki, image was unencyclopedic and unused. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
movie file updated as jpeg Ebaychatter0 (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Matanya Morning ☼ (talk) 10:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
to big should be smaller for integration Jener13 (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: use "thumb" parameter Denniss (talk) 18:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
not longer necessary, rights unknown Jener13 (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is used at Petersberg (at de.wp). But the author-information given is wrong. At named "de:Kraus Fandor" sale-box, the company was established in 1910 and produced until 1938. So the uploader isn't the author, and the picture is probably a copyright-violation.
Delete. --Quedel (talk) 14:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 23:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because. See [[User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing|]] Minhminh284 (talk) 13:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Dokientrung has been blocked indefinitely in common because:
- Stealing other peoples work
- Uploading it to flickr against the flickr terms of service
- Forwarding the stolen photos to Commons with the claim that "Dokientrung" on flickr is the author
- claiming that the copyright holder, "Dokientrung" voluntarily published the file under a free license allowing anyone worldwide to reuse the file... See User talk:Dokientrung#flickr washing Minhminh284 (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Uploader Daniel JL Corumbá (talk · contribs) so far contributed only stolen photos. Also this photo is taken from panoramio, flickr or one of those skyscrapercity forums. Not own work, like all the other uploads. Martin H. (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Denniss (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
I need to remove all my old photos from internet... thanks for your understanding! 109.128.201.92 08:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Could you please make a post as the uploader, so that we know you're not just some random person wanting them deleted? -mattbuck (Talk) 11:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I thought my name appeared when I asked to deleted the photos. If not, now you should see it's me, Emy Lya Elbereth who requested to deleted the photos. ^_^ -emylya
Deleted: OK then. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of File:Commendatore.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted Duplicate of File:Commendatore.jpg. --GeorgHH • talk 14:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
License statement seems to allow use only for sites discussing the company, and so it's not appropriate for Commons. Can be moved to en.wp and re-uploaded there as fair use. David1217 (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Keep US logo, not UK, so below COM:TOO. Doesn't matter what their licensing statement says; a licensing statement can grant new rights, but cannot take away existing rights. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, you're right. Is there a way to withdraw this DR? David1217 (talk) 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Nomination withdrawn. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio cyanide and happiness Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - Apparently just copied and converted from http://www.explosm.net/comics/1470/ with no authorisation. --whym (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
File:Padma Vibhushan, PVSM, MVC (Bar), AVSM COAS, Armoured Corps, Deccan Horse -13th Chief of Army Staff.jpg
[edit],_AVSM_COAS,_Armoured_Corps,_Deccan_Horse_-13th_Chief_of_Army_Staff.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
,_AVSM_COAS,_Armoured_Corps,_Deccan_Horse_-13th_Chief_of_Army_Staff.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No scope for this jumble of images. Fry1989 eh? 02:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - copyvio, like all other images uploaded by the user. Utcursch (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: by Sven Manguard Morning ☼ (talk) 14:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright vio. Rapsar (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused personal image; small resolution and blurry Wiki13 08:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (he is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused private drawing - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader's unused self image. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader's sweet son - doubtful about the usability of this pic. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
probably unused self pic Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, possible personal photo Mjrmtg (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer was initially unknown or that more than 70 years have passed since his death. Eleassar (t/p) 14:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The image is the file of Digitalna knjižnica Slovenija 1. Doncsecz (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Now i was modify the file by this. Doncsecz (talk) 14:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination now that reliable information has been added. --Eleassar (t/p) 15:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 14:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
A page from a work written by an author, sl:Anton Trstenjak, who died in 1996. Eleassar (t/p) 14:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is not true. This Anton Trstenjak died in 1917 (article of the Slovene wikipedia). Doncsecz (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I withdraw my nomination. I've added the information about the lifespan of the author and a link to the Slovene Wikipedia. --Eleassar (t/p) 14:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Commons is not private photoalbum. Not used. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
If its an official portrait, it's not copyrighted by the Romanian National Archives. The Vietnamese photographer or publisher would hold the rights. As such, the release of rights is inapplicable. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Its not an official portrait, its taken from this picture [1]... Secondly, all pictures fmor the Romanian National Archives can be uploaded to wikipedia.. Its there policy.. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- You're right, I was hasty on this one.Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Its not an official portrait, its taken from this picture [1]... Secondly, all pictures fmor the Romanian National Archives can be uploaded to wikipedia.. Its there policy.. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Withdraw.Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: withdrawn by nominator Morning ☼ (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused text document. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisment; Possibly copyvio too as this appears at some other sites. Wiki13 15:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Advertisment Wiki13 15:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Out of Commons:Project scope: Unused personal image Wiki13 17:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope - too blurry to be used INeverCry 17:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Sculptor Valentin Znoba died in 2006. Jafeluv (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
private personal image, not used in any article, not useful for educational purposes L736E (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
My name is Brittany Binger and this photo is almost 3 years old. I am trying to upload a more recent photo of me from my official website www.brittanybingeronline.com Numchuck68 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep We do not delete old photos, but rather replace them in articles if a suitable one comes up. In your case, please upload the new photo, put {{OTRS pending}} on it (important: otherwise it may be deleted), and have the photographer send permission to COM:OTRS. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No valid reason for deletion Morning ☼ (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Personal picture of non-notable wiki user. Martin H. (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE - poor quality image of unidentified, probably not notable person. ELEKHHT 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE. Ver poor quality image. Much better images available on Commons. ELEKHHT 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope Morning ☼ (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE: poor quality image of unidentified subject. Out of scope description. ELEKHHT 21:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Wer?Du?! (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, jokepicture Wer?Du?! (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, jokepicture Wer?Du?! (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Morning ☼ (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
copyvio unfree software Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:07, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
commercial product no educational use Wer?Du?! (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Self-taken shot, apparently of "Angell Summers", and no evidence user is that person. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hola que hace?.jpg with no relationship to prior "Angell.jpg" deletions. Not educationally useful. Ellin Beltz (talk) 16:01, 17 November 2014 (UTC) Deleted: Out of scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 19:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Watermark. ProfesorFavalli (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work of the Charlie Brown image, which is copyrighted. David1217 (talk) 01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
![01:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/27#c-David1217-2012-10-27T01:49:00.000Z-File:Title_Card_To,_"_Its_Halloween_Again,_Charlie_Brown.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
![01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2012/10/27#c-INeverCry-2012-11-03T01:09:00.000Z-File:Title_Card_To,_"_Its_Halloween_Again,_Charlie_Brown.jpg){kind=link}
Copyright violation. ProfesorFavalli (talk) 02:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
"Because it was on tv for the inauguration of Queen Beatrix" is not a valid PD reason. However, does the Netherlands have PD for the government, and if so, is this a government work? David1217 (talk) 02:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Professional publicity photo of band; claims of own work are simply not credible. No evidence of PD status or free license.GrapedApe (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:09, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The license appears to be invalid. There's no convincing case for public domain, and no reason to believe the original photographer released the image under a CC-BY-3.0 license. Diannaa (talk) 03:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Same problem, same uploader:
- File:Sima Milutinovic.jpg
- File:Dušan Stankov.jpg
- File:Arno HD.320.jpg
- File:Hantiot HD.320.jpg
- File:Ikarus SM.jpg
- File:Rogozarski SIM VIa.JPG
- File:Ikarus Orkan2.JPG
- File:Ikarus Orkan mont3.jpg
- File:Ikarus 214.JPG
- File:Ikarus MM2 3.jpg
- File:Fizir F1M Jupiter.JPG
- File:Zmaj R-1,1.JPG
- File:Ikarus 215.JPG
- File:Fizirmajbah2.jpg
all copyrigted. Dusan
Comment The uploader seems to have misunderstood the implication of "life+70 years", thinking that the photo is in the public domain because the Yugoslav Air Force ceased to exist more than 70 years ago. If that were the case, then works produced by en:Kongō Gumi in the 6th century would still be copyrighted since the company still seems to exist in some form. There is no explanation as to why this would be in the public domain in the United States. If the indicated book from 2010 was the first place where it was published, then it is copyrighted in the United States for 120 years since photography. --Stefan4 (talk) 16:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Looks like copyvio from http://www.sikhiwallpapers.com/wallpapers/500/inside-golden-temple where already posted in 2009 ELEKHHT 04:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Taken from http://www.sikhiwallpapers.com/photos/818/the-langar-hall-darbar-sahib-amritsar where posted in 2009 ELEKHHT 04:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused private photo - out of project scope. Art-top (talk) 05:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
upload mistake Twinsday (talk) 07:31, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Not a free screenshot. Copyright of this game is claimed by Zemi Interactive Inc. with All rights reserved; see here Wiki13 08:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Same picture used in here, before 27 January 2010. Possible copyright violation. Rapsar (talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 08:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Same picture used in several websites before 26 June 2006. Possible copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Per nom. Takabeg (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyvio. Rapsar (talk) 08:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-free AP Photo by Phelan M. Ebenhack according to the metadata of File:Minnie Mouse.jpg, which is a different crop of the same photo. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (she is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (she is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:14, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Hasan Sami Bolak - Berke dğm..jpg
- File:Hasan Sami Bolak (Milano).jpg
- File:Hsb-anskl.gif
- File:Berber ve Efe 2.JPG
- File:Hasan Sami Bolak 2649.jpg
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image, out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (he is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (he is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unused personal image (she is not a notable person), out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
unused personal photo — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. - FitIndia Talk ✉ 06:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Out of scope. Rapsar (talk) 10:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Please deleted. Turkishpop (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Copyvio. INeverCry 01:19, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope, possible self photo Mjrmtg (talk) 11:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Motopark as Speedy (speedy) and the most recent rationale was: Out of project scope Sanandros (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete some homepage material Motopark (talk) 12:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader's sweet daughter - I don't know what's the encyclopedic value of this. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:20, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader and his sweet daughter - I don't know what's the encyclopedic value of this. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
uploader's sweet home - no encyclopedic value. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 12:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but tis looks not realy covert by COM:FOP#Argentina. The scupltor Edoardo Rubino died 1954. This sculpture will become PD in 2025. JuTa 13:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Created in the 20th century by an unknown creator at an unknown place, therefore the copyright status remains unclear. Eleassar (t/p) 13:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is this ineligible for copyright? It's either a photo or a non-photographic image of two 3D objects. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:24, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unknown creator (acribed to the lexicographer F. Dobrovoljc, who died in 1995), published (for the first time) in 1979. No evidence that it is a public domain image. Eleassar (t/p) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence about the author and the date of original publication, to verify that the image is indeed a free work. It is probably derived from [2], published in 1847 by J. Rannabauer. Eleassar (t/p) 13:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
![[2]](http://www.aeiou.at/aeiou.encyclop.data.image.f/f995815a.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable evidence that the author of the image died before 1945 or to confirm that it was originally published as an anonymous work. Eleassar (t/p) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
COM:FOP#Philippines. 84.61.129.239 14:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the work was indeed originally published as anonymous or that the author died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 14:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the photo was initially published as anonymous or that the author died before 1945. Eleassar (t/p) 14:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the photographer was initially unknown or that more than 70 years have passed since his death. Eleassar (t/p) 14:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that all the files are in the public domain. I'm particularly concerned about File:Pável Ágoston és felesége Benkő Irén (1914).JPG and File:Kranjec Miško.jpg (in addition, the licensing is incorrect) Eleassar (t/p) 14:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 01:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
No evidence that the photo was originally published anonymously or that its author died more than 70 years ago. Eleassar (t/p) 14:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The pictures appears on several websites, without author and date. While the image is certainly interesting and cannot be replaced, as the factory has been demolished, we cannot be sure that the image is free. Strainu (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unlikely to be own work: small resolution, missing EXIF. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyrighted information board. Eleassar (t/p) 15:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Unknown creator, who possibly lived after 1945; no reliable evidence that the image was originally published anonymously. Eleassar (t/p) 15:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Author of the grave by this reference Jože Plečnik. Doncsecz (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- If he drew this image (this should be proven with a source), it will remain copyrighted until 2028 (i.e. 1957+70+1). --Eleassar (t/p) 16:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The author saw the CC license and refused to send the permission to ORTS. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
The author saw the CC license and refused to send the permission to ORTS. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Non-free information board. Eleassar (t/p) 15:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no evidence that this is in the public domain. Apparently taken in 1941 and the source seems to be a book from 2008 or so. Commons files have to be in the public domain in both the United States and the source country. It is claimed that the photo is anonymous, but there is no information that this is true. Google Translate suggests that this photo was lost in 1944, so it is possible that it might not have been published before 2008.
Source country: 2008 was less than 70 years after creation. Since the photo was made available to the public within 70 years from creation, the copyright expires 70 years after the photo was made available to the public. If the photo was first published in 2008, it means that the photo enters the public domain in the source country in 2079 (70 years after 2008) if it is anonymous. If it is not anonymous, it might enter the public domain earlier, but this needs a source.
United States: An anonymous work created in 1941 and first published in 2008 is copyrighted for 120 years since creation, meaning PD in 2062. If the photo isn't anonymous, the copyright does instead expire 70 years after the death of the photographer. Stefan4 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work. No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Sculptor Vladislav Volosenko is still alive, and so the depicted work is still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This picture is my own. Besides, we are friends with Mr. Volosenko, we know each other well and he knows about this picture of mine.
Derivative work. No freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Erected in 1964, the depicted monument is still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. Sculptor Inna Kolomiets died in 2005, so the depicted work is still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Derivative work, no freedom of panorama in Ukraine. According to the uk.wp description the depicted building was built in the 1990s so it's likely still under copyright. Jafeluv (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:32, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
This page is obsolete. There is a categorie "Mata Hari" that covers the subject better. It´s annoying to land here every time you do a search for new Mata Hari pictures. Judithcomm (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:33, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
this is uploaded wrong MrInfo2012 (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE. There are about a 1000 pigeon pictures on Commons, many of them much better. This one is bad quality, poorly described and wrongly named. ELEKHHT 20:40, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Per COM:SCOPE Poor quality image with no description. ELEKHHT 20:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but this looks not covered by COM:FOP#Argentina. As sculptor en:Guillermo Gianninazzi died 1948, this sculpture will become PD in 2019. JuTa 20:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
logo unlikely to be own work Vera (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
possible copyright infringement, see http://www.sname.org (no indication of CC BY-SA 3.0) Crowsnest (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep as {{PD-textlogo}}. I don't see how the creativity in this surpasses that of File:Best Western logo.svg (which the copyright office rejected three times). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Personal photo. Out of scope. P199 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
I uploaded a bulk of photos I took, and this one has no interest El Pantera (talk) 22:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Je suis la personne prise en photo et je hais cette photo, j'ai honte à chaque fois que quelqu'un tape mon nom sur google, si ça continue, je vais changer de nom pour que le sgens ne tombent plus sur cette photo alors s'il vous plait, retirez la !! 82.232.33.88 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete per request of the person in the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebaychatter0 (talk • contribs) 16:59, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd say this is too complex to be a PD-textlogo Vera (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violoation, see http://arfakarim.org/wp-content/gallery/arfa-karim/arfa-karim-1.jpg WWGB (talk) 23:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, see http://www.ideasevolved.com/arfa-karim-you-are-not-dead/ WWGB (talk) 23:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation, see http://www.nairaland.com/849988/world-youngest-microsoft-certified-professional WWGB (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
out of scope Wer?Du?! (talk) 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Created after the death of the writer in 1962, per COM:FOP#Slovenia not eligible for Commons. Eleassar (t/p) 15:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Work of an unidentified sculptor, who created it after 1966. Per COM:FOP#Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Converted to DR by me from a speedy by Alx 91 for "derivative", mainly because of heavy use and being on Commons for nearly 3 years. --Túrelio (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Delete, seems to be rather clear derivative as per COM:CB#Comic and action figures. --Túrelio (talk) 07:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This is from public place. In Disneyland cameras are normal. --Starscream (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- FOP in the US is "for buildings only". --Túrelio (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep The relevant section is not COM:CB#Comic and action figures but COM:CB#Costumes and cosplay. This is a costume, and we do not yet have consensus for deleting pictures of individuals costumed as characters. Powers (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per Powers, if I understand precedence correctly. We should come to a consensus on the types of images in general before any are deleted. Jujutacular talk 02:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Otherwise the thing would sound paradoxical: how could Disney allow cameras and possibly claim that the pictures one takes are not free? -- Blackcat (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not a valid argument. Meaning that something is copyrighted is not equivalent to no-photos-allowed, as in most countries you are allowed to take photos for personal purposes. However, distributing such photos under a free license is something alltogether different. --Túrelio (talk) 15:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- (Edit conflict) That's not quite solid, it's like asking how can France claim they allow cameras in their country if so much of the architecture there cannot be photographed under a free license. Even if we do decide that these types of photos cannot be kept, it is very possible to take freely licensable photos there under de minimis. They also of course want to allow photos for personal use. Jujutacular talk 15:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but the point is : is this photo a clear and undoubtable infringement of anyone's copyright? -- Blackcat (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is actually what we are discussing on this page. If it would have been 100 percent "undoubtable", I would have clicked the speedy-deletion button instead of creating this page. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me if I am confused. But I thought that we had to discuss whether this file could stay here or not, not if this was a copyright infringment, which shouldn't be matter of discussion (either it is or not; if it's then you correctly click the delete button; if it's not we might at the most discuss whether this picture is within Commons' scope or less). Let's imagine a (not so) imaginary situation: the user Blackcat (me) uploads a picture of an old car with a building, (which architect is either live or supposedly dead less than 70, or 75, yrs ago depending on the local laws) on the background. Tomorrow the user Jujutacular crops the pic Blackcat has uploaded and uploads a new work picturing the building only. Is that a copyright infringment, since in the original photo the building was meant to be only a background? That's why I doubt that the picture we are discussing about should be considered "not free". -- Blackcat (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many of the discussions here are about copyright infringement. Copyright law is quite complicated, so it is usually not as easy as you make it seem to determine whether or not an image is a copyright violation. In this case: the character itself (Minnie Mouse) is a copyrighted character. Ex- Wikimedia lawyer Mike Godwin is of the opinion that photos of someone in said costume are permissible, others are of the opinion that they are not. Your 'cropping' example isn't really pertinent here because the original photo here is just the character, nothing about a background. Still, in that case I would say that the new cropped photo would be a violation, as the crop would no longer satisfy de minimis. De minimis is irrelevant in this Minnie Mouse instance. Jujutacular talk 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- yes but following this logics we will get to the paradox that we wouldn't be able to take photos of anything that is newer than 100 yrs or built by someone still alive or dead less than 70 yrs ago. I can mention all the photos of cars (whose designers are either still alive or dead not very long ago), clothes (by a fashion designer), and even common non artistic buildings (no matter how ugly and unworth a building is, it has been designed by an architect) : if the criteria is 'protecting copyright' then half of the pictures here are to be deleted. If the criteria is 'protecting Walt-Disney's-and-anyone-who-has-money-enough-to-file-a-lawsuit-against-us's copyright' then this picture only is to be deleted, and the others can stay. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Preferential treatment is not given to people or organizations with enough money to file a lawsuit. We delete copyright violations. Period. Please read relevant policy pages to find out what is and what is not clearly a violation (COM:L, COM:FOP, COM:ART, etc). You may also find the image casebook helpful. Jujutacular talk 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've read it. Still, I can't find any copyright violation in this file. -- Blackcat (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- The designer of the costume created a new artistic work at the time the costume was created. That artistic work is eligible for copyright protection. That copyright rests with the Walt Disney Company because that is the company for whom the artistic work was created (it was a "work for hire"). The copyright has not yet expired, nor do we have any evidence of the Walt Disney Company abandoning it or releasing it under a free license. Any photographs of it are therefore derivative works and subject to our normal rules on derivative works. (Fortunately for this particular image, we allow photographs of costumes; such derivative works are not considered to infringe on the costume's copyright.) Powers (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've read it. Still, I can't find any copyright violation in this file. -- Blackcat (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Preferential treatment is not given to people or organizations with enough money to file a lawsuit. We delete copyright violations. Period. Please read relevant policy pages to find out what is and what is not clearly a violation (COM:L, COM:FOP, COM:ART, etc). You may also find the image casebook helpful. Jujutacular talk 00:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- yes but following this logics we will get to the paradox that we wouldn't be able to take photos of anything that is newer than 100 yrs or built by someone still alive or dead less than 70 yrs ago. I can mention all the photos of cars (whose designers are either still alive or dead not very long ago), clothes (by a fashion designer), and even common non artistic buildings (no matter how ugly and unworth a building is, it has been designed by an architect) : if the criteria is 'protecting copyright' then half of the pictures here are to be deleted. If the criteria is 'protecting Walt-Disney's-and-anyone-who-has-money-enough-to-file-a-lawsuit-against-us's copyright' then this picture only is to be deleted, and the others can stay. -- Blackcat (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Many of the discussions here are about copyright infringement. Copyright law is quite complicated, so it is usually not as easy as you make it seem to determine whether or not an image is a copyright violation. In this case: the character itself (Minnie Mouse) is a copyrighted character. Ex- Wikimedia lawyer Mike Godwin is of the opinion that photos of someone in said costume are permissible, others are of the opinion that they are not. Your 'cropping' example isn't really pertinent here because the original photo here is just the character, nothing about a background. Still, in that case I would say that the new cropped photo would be a violation, as the crop would no longer satisfy de minimis. De minimis is irrelevant in this Minnie Mouse instance. Jujutacular talk 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Excuse me if I am confused. But I thought that we had to discuss whether this file could stay here or not, not if this was a copyright infringment, which shouldn't be matter of discussion (either it is or not; if it's then you correctly click the delete button; if it's not we might at the most discuss whether this picture is within Commons' scope or less). Let's imagine a (not so) imaginary situation: the user Blackcat (me) uploads a picture of an old car with a building, (which architect is either live or supposedly dead less than 70, or 75, yrs ago depending on the local laws) on the background. Tomorrow the user Jujutacular crops the pic Blackcat has uploaded and uploads a new work picturing the building only. Is that a copyright infringment, since in the original photo the building was meant to be only a background? That's why I doubt that the picture we are discussing about should be considered "not free". -- Blackcat (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- This is actually what we are discussing on this page. If it would have been 100 percent "undoubtable", I would have clicked the speedy-deletion button instead of creating this page. --Túrelio (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
- Yes but the point is : is this photo a clear and undoubtable infringement of anyone's copyright? -- Blackcat (talk) 09:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Kept: as long as we have no consensus per Mike Godwin Jcb (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
as the decision reached on Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Appreciate America. Come On Gang. All Out for Uncle Sam" (Mickey Mouse)" - NARA - 513869.tif. We need to be consistent. If an image of Mickey from a public domain movie cannot be allowed because it is a derivative, this one can't be either. Yann (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Now, I do not think there is anything in common between PD movies and costumes, so there is no need for consistency. That said, considering COM:CB#Costumes and cosplay, I think the Minnie Mouse mask is a separable aspect of the picture. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:34, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Deleted . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 01:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Non-free AP Photo by Phelan M. Ebenhack according to the file's metadata. —LX (talk, contribs) 09:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted as per LX. Yann (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
.svg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Looks like another sock of Jermboy. Needs a source or it's not real. Fry1989 eh? 01:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: and blocked sock. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:05, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
no FoP in UAE, please protect this filename to prevent further uploads Liliana-60 (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Can this image be kept in Wikipedia and Commons under the license of "FoP-USonly|UAE"? 114.78.167.117 13:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. Also, salted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:12, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
See COM:FOP. Stefan4 (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
No FoP in UAE; also the name needs to be salted. Ymblanter (talk) 09:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination --Krd 13:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
We have SVGs of this flag. Fry1989 eh? 15:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Redundant. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ComputerHotline as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FoP in France. INeverCry 18:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Pourrais-je avoir plus de précisions sur les motifs exacts de cette demande de suppression ?
La vue intérieure du radôme est-elle "protégée", et par qui ?
Qui a fait la demande de suppression, et pour quelle raison ?
Que veut dire "No FoP in France" ???
Médard
- J'ai répondu à ces questions sur cette page. Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep This antenna can't surely be considered as an architectural artwork. Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep peu importe le FoP ou pas Fop en France, cette photo a été prise en intérieur. Quel élément de la photographie serait suffisamment original pour être couvert par le droit d'auteur ? Je n'en vois aucun. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Photo of industrial design. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:17, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
No scope. Fry1989 eh? 22:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
Corrupt file, replaced by File:Othello-japan2.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: per nom. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:19, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Erected in the 2000s - no FOP in Slovenia. Eleassar (t/p) 00:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep: "Strunjanski križ naj bi pomorščaki opazovali že od leta 1600."[3].
- Actually, this photo was made in 2007, before the unveiling of the current one, which was put on the site one in July 2011. It depicts a concrete cross that was there since 1927.[4] If one can find evidence that its creator died before 1945, I have no problem keeping it. --Eleassar (t/p) 09:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Don't think it mathers as it's a typical cross like many others, without any threshold of originality. --Sporti (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as per Sporti. Yann (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose (because of the censorship), therefore out of scope.. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which censorship? What is here to be censored? The faces are already invisible and only fanatic religeous people will censor shoulders and arms. Keep!!. --Peng (talk) 10:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The black box in the middle of the people's faces is the censorship I am referring to, and it destroys the usefulness of the photo for no good reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh no, the black box is protecting the children 's faces from recognizing. The foto is not to show faces, but swimbelts. So it is very useful for this. Who says it is only used for education? It is to show how such a belt looks and how it is used. --Peng (talk) 10:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The black box in the middle of the people's faces is the censorship I am referring to, and it destroys the usefulness of the photo for no good reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Not realistically useful for an educational purpose (because of the censorship), therefore out of scope.. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Which censorship? What is here to be censored? The faces are already invisible and only fanatic religeous people or the teaparty movement will censor shoulders and arms of swimming children. Keep!!. --Peng (talk) 10:04, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The black box in the middle of the people's faces is the censorship I am referring to, and it destroys the usefulness of the photo for no good reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh no, the black box is protecting the children 's faces. The foto is not to show faces, but swimbelts. So it is very useful for this. --Peng (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- The black box in the middle of the people's faces is the censorship I am referring to, and it destroys the usefulness of the photo for no good reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:50, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: No reason to delete. Yann (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
wrong upload will be updated WWSS1 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 01:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
{{BadJPEG}}; no "valid" description; thus in scope?? McZusatz (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Nk as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: https://dskbank.bg INeverCry 18:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: PD-textlogo. Yann (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ComputerHotline as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FoP in France INeverCry 18:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Any copyrighted item would be de minimis. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by ComputerHotline as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: No FoP in France. INeverCry 18:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Pourrais-je avoir plus de précisions sur les motifs exacts de cette demande de suppression ?
La vue extérieure du radôme est-elle "protégée", et par qui ?
Qui a fait la demande de suppression, et pour quelle raison ?
que veut dire "No FoP in France" ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Médard (talk • contribs)
- Contrairement à d'autres pays, il n'existe pas en France de « Liberté de panorama » (en anglais «Freedom of Panorama » d'où l'acronyme FoP utilisé par certains initiés sur Commons). Cela signifie donc qu'il n'est pas permis de prendre en photo et de diffuser librement une œuvre d'art (y compris architecturale) placée sur la voie publique sans autorisation de l'auteur, ou de ses ayant-droit si ce dernier est mort depuis moins de 70 ans. Cette disposition du droit, souvent méconnue, conduit donc à supprimer de Commons un nombre important de photos de bâtiments récents prises en France. Ces suppressions ne sont cependant pas systématiques et, pour chaque cas, un débat est organisé au sein de la communauté. En effet, comme indiqué sur la page dont le lien se situe ci-dessus, la jurisprudence conduit à se poser plusieurs questions :
- Le bâtiment photographié peut-il être considéré comme une œuvre artistique ou comme un simple objet utilitaire ?
- Le bâtiment est-il le sujet principal de la photo ou est-il un élément accessoire ?
- Qui doit être considéré comme l'auteur de l'œuvre ? Est-il mort depuis assez longtemps pour que l'œuvre architecturale soit passée dans le domaine public ?
- C'est donc pour discuter de ces éléments que l'utilisateur ComputerHotline a proposé cette photo à la suppression. Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep Despite the fact that there is no freedom of panorama in France, this photo should be kept. In fact, this building is just a technical building (there are many radomes all over the world) and it can't be considered as an architectural artwork. Pymouss Let’s talk - 12:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
OK, capito ;-) Je ne me rappelais plus de cette histoire de "liberté de panorama"… maintenant qu'on en parle, ça me fait penser à la polémique à propos d'une photo d'une place à Lyon, où figurait la réalisation d'un architecte ; finalement l'architecte a été débouté, car son immeuble n'était pas l'élément le plus important de la photo, il figurait juste comme les autres bâtiments sur la place (Réf ?) M'enfin, pour en revenir à nos moutons^W radômes, effectivement je pense qu'on peut dire qu'il s'agit d'un objet technique (relativement) banal :-)
Médard
- Keep, le radôme n'est pas une œuvre d'art mais un ouvrage technique et ce n'est même pas vraiment un bâtiment mais plutôt un instrument. Pour la place des Terreaux à Lyon, le situation est différente : les architectes (Buren et de Drevet) ont été déboutés parce que leur œuvre était « accessoire » sur la photographie (ref : Cass, 1re civ, 15 mars 2005). Cldt, VIGNERON (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. Photo of a technical protector envelope, which should not be considered as a sculpture or other copyrightable work. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Kept: as above. Yann (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: sculpture died in 1978, indoors so no FOP, Reaction: Really a speedy for a 4 year old image from a regular contributor? This image is inside a natural park see [5] voor 100 other images from this park (of which most authors are not dead 70 years, please discuss this in a regular nomination. As its not clear whether an outdoors museum park (inside Hoge Veluwe) is public ground (a judge in the Netherlands ruled a vacation park (camping) a public space because everybody can walk in there).
Converted by me to DR per wish of original tagger. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you, I think this image is not a obvious copyvio but also not clearly not a copyvio. The dutch situation on what is public terrain is not that easy as sketched, and the accesability of the "beeldenpark from Kroller Muller" at the Hoge Veluwe is the main question in deleting or not deleting this image. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 22:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Covered by FOP. Yann (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 1Veertje as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: sculpter died in 1997, indoors so no FOP.
Converted by me to DR, as location might be in the same park as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Termote Meisjeskop.jpg and thereby eventually indeed covered by FOP-NL. -- Túrelio (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This sculpture is in the garden of the Kröller-Müller Museum, so it is NOT indoors, as can be seen the sun is on the right of the photo. This sculpture is placed "in" the same pavillion. See for more photos in this pavillion: Category:Sculptures in the Kröller-Müller Museum. In case of doubt, just ask me on my talkpage. Thanks for the heart attack. Dqfn13 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
,_Kr%C3%B6ller-M%C3%BCller_Museum.JPG){kind=link}
Kept: Covered by FOP. Yann (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The old revision from October 2010 lacks enough copyright information, so it needs to be deleted. I added a {{Split}} tag to have it split from the other image so as not to bother the initial uploader, but the {{Split}} tag was removed. Stefan4 (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Kept: Old file deleted. Yann (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
This is an own file from family without any violation !
Deleted: INeverCry 18:57, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The manufacturer uses the same image in his homepage. It is unclear whether we do have a permission by the manufacturer in order to publish it here under a free license High Contrast (talk) 10:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Je possède les droits de cette photo car elle appartient à mon entreprise. Cependant la page handicat.com est un revendeur de ce produit et ils ont l'autorisation de notre part de l'utiliser.
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this seems not to be covered by COM:FOP#Japan. JuTa 10:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Eek, I do not disagree, based on those rules, which I had not previously seen. --Douglaspperkins (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
No reliable evidence that the photo was initially published anonymously or that he died at least 70 years ago. Eleassar (t/p) 15:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I was see the photo in the János Kühár Memorial House, Felsőszölnök. Designated year the 1910s. Doncsecz (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, you have to prove with a source that the work was originally published anonymously or that its author died at least 70 years ago. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
This flag isn't allowed on Commons. Fry1989 eh? 15:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This is the same flag [File:Flag of the African Union.svg] but with a different file type, why delete it? MauriManya (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's considered non-free content, it is against the licensing rules to be here. Fry1989 eh? 21:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. I did not know. MauriManya MauriManya (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's considered non-free content, it is against the licensing rules to be here. Fry1989 eh? 21:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Another file of this image was created, better resolution and vetorial: (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bandeira_campodobrito.svg) Riba28-maps (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate of image file (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BandeiraPoçoVerde.gif); exactly the same description and author. Riba28-maps (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Swinburne Coat of Arms.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Spot Galerie.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
_January_2010-tiny.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_January_2010-tiny.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scaled down version of File:Tim Ruiz performing with Vargas De La Garza at House of Blues (Houston) January, 2010.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
_January,_2010.jpg){kind=link}
_January_2010-tiny.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
_January_2010-tiny.jpg){kind=link}
Scaled down version of File:Grants 8098 Original.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The old revision by User:OPD lacks licensing information, so it needs to be deleted. I added a {{Split}} tag to have it split from the other image so as not to bother the initial uploader, but the {{Split}} tag was removed. Stefan4 (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete There is no description, so out of scope to me. Yann (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
"I feel somewhat uneasy with this file." There are some points that I want to put up for discussion:
I have strong doubts about the alleged status as "own work". The uploader has only 4 global contributions (more than 2,5 years old), the other three are unrelated to paintings or graphical art (but more to music, as there is a photograph of a guitar among them).
A Google image search turns up some usages of this picture, likely as an avatar of some kind; but admittedly no definite source.
There is an old deletion debate ending in deletion for a file of this name, but of course, I couldn'confirm if it is the same image.
This image lacks educational useability, all the more with such a shortness in its description. Grand-Duc (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Support, considering most likely taken from http://www.dscuento.com/pinturas-al-oleo/ = http://www.dscuento.com/galeria/pinturas-al-oleo-1/ = .jpg (identical size) for which we have also an archive near to the upload date. Per deletion log of his autobiography, uploader born in 1996 and making videos for Youtube (16 years old at upload date). Gunnex (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Jpg 150.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:42, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down duplicate of File:Vagrant Records Logo.png. Froztbyte (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Enlarged duplicate version of File:Birkinghamian Party Political Compass.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:40, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate version of File:HEO.png. Froztbyte (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
and File:Socialist Caucus Logo.gif
The claim of the uploader that he is the copyright holder of this well-known image is hard to believe. This image (excluding of course the name of the particular organization reusing it) was part of publicized logos of political parties. Considering that, the copyright claim by the uploader sounds like either a copyvio or a copyfraud. At the least, the copyright claim of the uploader would require a credible confirmation. However, I don't know who originally drew the image or who could claim a valid copyright on it. That said, actually, I would be happy if someone can somehow make a case for the possibility of a public domain status of this image (although I am not over-optimistic about it). Asclepias (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- (Transferred from talk page:)
- I created the logo for the NDP Socialist Caucus in Adobe InDesign and published it on the Socialist Caucus website (www.ndpsocialists.ca) and the organization's wikipedia page.
- For a part of it, I used the international symbol of the Socialist International (the rose and fist), which is not copyrighted and is available for free use by socialist and social democratic members of the Socialist International, which the New Democratic Party itself belongs to.
- Socialist organizations throughout the world use the symbol to represent their democratic and egalitarian values. I don't even claim to have copyright over the rose and first, just the NDP Socialist Caucus Logo, since I created it.
- I fail to see what the problem is here, except that Asclepias clearly has way too much time on his hands.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Portpass19 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- I guess you must be the same person as User:Passport19. You did not create a new original variation around the theme of a rose and a fist. You copied, identically, the particular rendering of the S.I. logo, a pre-existing rendering that you did not create. It is a work that is the original creation of someone else. There is no significant difference, for example, between the rendering of the logo in the file Red Rose (Socialism).svg and the rendering in your file. The fact that political organizations affiliated to the S.I. validly use this image does not mean that it is not copyrighted, or that you can take upon you to offer it for free reuse, by anybody and including for any commercial purpose, in a file under a license that requires to credit you. You do not explain why you say that the image is not copyrighted. For what it's worth, Wikipedia disagrees with you on this point, as evidenced on the description page of File:Red Rose (Socialism).svg, linked above. Anyway, if you're saying that the particular graphism of that image is not copyrightable (why?) or that its copyright was explicitely released by its true original author or copyright holder (who?, when?), then you can't copyright the NDPSC logo in your name either, because then what part of the file would be your own copyrightable original creation, on which you could claim a copyright for yourself? Certainly not the letters of the alphabet. The name of the NDPSC? -- Asclepias (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Deleted: INeverCry 18:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Possible copyright violation. Small file with no EXIF and own work claim is doubtful. I think this should be deleted as per COM:PRP. Rapsar (talk) 10:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
There is no copyright violation: Picture was taken at my house by the photographer(Ms. Elif Tunca) and mailed to me at my request. I have the original file with exif which I can send if necessary. File was edited to a smaller size for easier handling. A signed relase can also be provided if necessary. I don't remember when I made an "own work claim" which Rapsar finds doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ayhan Tuğcugil (talk • contribs) 11:02, October 27, 2012 (UTC)
- You made your claim in the licanse section ;)--Rapsar (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand that I am guilty unless proven otherwise. I am now uploading the full file with exif. Which part of "I have the original file with exif which I can send if necessary" was not understood? And who has the overarching right to close debates when s/he feels like it? Ayhan Tuğcugil (talk)
Unneeded small version of File:Tea leaf reading.jpg. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja (talk / en) 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Woozz as Copyvio (copyvio) INeverCry 18:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete Probably out of scope. Yann (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Scaled down version of File:Martinjuventud.PNG. Froztbyte (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by 168.7.232.93 as Copyvio (copyvio) INeverCry 18:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
_January_2010-small.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_January_2010-small.jpg&action=edit§ion=T-1){kind=link}
Scaled down version of File:Tim Ruiz performing with Vargas De La Garza at House of Blues (Houston) January, 2010.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
_January_2010-small.jpg){kind=link}
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
_January_2010-small.jpg){kind=link}
Scaled down duplicate of File:Jpg 150.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Duplicate version of File:Портал Российский футбол.jpg. Froztbyte (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: Uncontested DR. MBisanz talk 04:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Too poorly pixellated to be of use. Alan Liefting (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Nominator asserts this image is "too poorly pixellated to be of use." While I would prefer an image with greater resolution, this image has been used to illustrate the article on this individual for over half a decade. I suggest this proves the image's resolution is sufficient to be of use, after all. Geo Swan (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep No better replacement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Delete - There is no proof that an employee of the US government created this image. Naval Postgraduate School borrows other peoples work for their own personal use but that doesn't give us permission to use it here.--Officer (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:József Klekl (politician)
[edit]No reliable evidence that the work was initially published anonymously or that the creator died at least 70 years ago (for Slovenia, before 1945).
- File:Az idősebb Klekl József.jpg
- File:Bratovcsina karmelszkoga skapulera.JPG
- File:Drzina Kolenko i Kleklov boter.jpg
- File:Jozef Klekl (dejsni).jpg - Digitalna Knjižnica Slovenije (1) I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Jozef Klekl (lejvi).jpg - Digitalna Knjižnica Slovenije (2) I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Jozef Klekl 1904.jpg - this is propably a photo of unknown Hungarian photographer from Szombathely. The photographer died before 1945. Conceivable this is a photo of Vasárnapi újság
- File:Jozef Klekl 1929.jpg
- File:Jozef Klekl i Ivan Jeric.jpg - Digitalna knjižnica Slovenije (3) I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Jozef Klekl kak castni kanonik.jpg
- File:Jozef Klekl kanonok vu pokoji.jpg
- File:Jozef Klekl reditel 1929.jpg
- File:Jozef Klekl Stari v Novinaj (1930).JPG
- File:Jozsef Klekl (1874-1947).jpg - dlib.si (4 I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Jožef Klekl.jpg
- File:Kaszap Stevan.JPG
- File:Klekl Jozsef igazolvanykepe.jpg - dlib.si (5) I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Klekl József és szülei.jpg
- File:Klekl kak pavar.jpg - dlib.si (6) I withdraw my nomination --Eleassar (t/p) 16:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
- File:Odbor hranilnice in posojilnice Crensovci.jpg
- File:Orli in Jozef Klekl.jpg
- File:Pesmarski zbor Marijinoga lista.JPG
- File:Pevski zbor Klekla.jpg
- File:Siritelje Marijinoga lista, 1929.JPG
- File:Za gimnazijo (Novine, 1932. XII. 25.).JPG
- File:Zivlenjepis Svete Treze (prva stran).JPG
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.JPG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
Eleassar (t/p) 16:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Few files is from Digitalna Knjižnica Slovenije. Doncsecz (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please list them and tag them as such at their description pages. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I've withdrawn the nomination of those photos that have been posted in the dLib as public domain per a reliable source. --Eleassar (t/p) 16:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files uploaded by Antoniomokarzel (talk · contribs)
[edit]I dont think this files are own work. The following reasons:
- both files are 500px at the longer site. Thats the typical thumbnail size for files from flickr and panoramio.
For the first I have a 800px version here. Thats not the source, but they share the same original source. And that source offered a larger size and a 500px thumbnail version.
For the second I have a 640px version here, same as above --Martin H. (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but this looks not covered COM:FOP#Germany because its located indoors. JuTa 20:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- The same applies to File:Wächterengel von Allgaier Bad Waldsee.JPG. --JuTa 21:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Aussegnungshalle ist nach vorne offen, hat hier keinerlei Türen, ist somit kein umbauter Raum. Vielleicht habe ich noch ein Foto der gesamten Halle, habe derzeit aber keine Zeit, dieses herauszusuchen. --4028mdk09 (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Files in Category:Saint Peter church, Ljubljana
[edit]The front facade was redesigned by Ivan Vurnik (1884-1971) and his wife Helena Vurnik (1882-1962). Per COM:FOP#Slovenia, its images are not eligible for Commons.
- File:Cerkev sv. Petra.jpg
- File:SLO-Ljubljana03.JPG
- File:StPeter-Ljubljana.JPG
- File:VidGajsek - Vigilijske zvezdice pri svetem Petru - velikonocni astrograf.jpg
Eleassar (t/p) 22:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- If I'm not mistaken, among the ones nominated, one shows the church before the redesign, and another shows the side without the facade. So, I'd say Keep File:Cerkev sv. Petra, Ljubljana-Center, skozi okno Inštituta za biofiziko.jpg and File:Cerkev sv. Petra 1890.jpg, and Delete the others. --whym (talk) 21:28, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- These two were not nominated, just because of the reasons mentioned above. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed. I somehow misrecognized the two were also mentioned, sorry. Anyway, I support deleting the four images. --whym (talk) 22:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- These two were not nominated, just because of the reasons mentioned above. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 18:44, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Files containing non-PD texts from tombs in Okinawa, Japan
[edit]Possible copyvio - derivative works of plates with non-PD texts.
whym (talk) 04:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- こんにちは。著作権の問題があると言うことでしょうか。もし問題があるなら削除していただいて結構です。
- Sorry, I don't know whether uploading the photos with the texts has copyvio. If it is so, please delete the photos.--やちむん (talk) 04:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- やちむんさんへ：ご理解ありがとうございます。少し詳しくご説明しますと、文章が写真のうち大きな部分を占めるこのような場合は、写しとられた文章を書いた人の著作権が写真にも及ぶと考えるべきだと思い、削除依頼をいたしました。--whym (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: INeverCry 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The source says: "The National Library of Medicine's Profiles in Science program has made every effort to secure proper permissions for posting items on the web site. In this instance, however, it has either not been possible to identify or contact the current copyright owner." Hence, the copyright status is unknown and the image cannot be used as PD. Niklem (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment This File belongs to Barbara McClintock Papers. The McClintock Papers were donated to the American Philosophical Society (APS) Library by the estate of Barbara McClintock in 1992 (please see Provenance). File creator is unknown and the Copyright owner is unknown (please see http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/LL/B/B/P/P/).
Question Can we mark this file as {{PD-US-no notice}}? Jacopo Werther iγ∂ψ=mψ 17:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: We have no indication of when or where this was first published, so PD-no-notice cannot be applied. If it was first published after the donation in 1992, then it will be under copyright until at least 12/31/2047. . Jim . . . . Jameslwoodward (talk to me) 22:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
No indication of the year of original publication (just creation). Even then, the work would not have been PD in Vietnam on the date of restoration, per w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- date is identified, see http://www.ngaymoi.vn/mai-mai-la-dai-tuong-p53a13025.html .. and yes, it would be PD in Vietnam. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- On the restoration date... this image is not PD in the US and cannot be on Commons.Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This picture can be uploaded to commons, its copyright in both the US and VIetnam has expired. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Please read and w:URAA and Commons:URAA-restored copyrights before you continue that incorrect line of thought.Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- I want to confirm one. Date of restration of Vietnam is December 23, 1998. At this time, if a picture was PD in Vietnam by Civil code of 1995, is it PD in USA today?--Ashtray (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- That's borderline, but possible. Did it count based on 1 January of the year in which the work was created (assuming the author of this work is unknown) or of the following year? If the former, and this is an anonymous work, PD. If the latter, not PD at the time of restoration.Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- See s:Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works/Articles 1 to 21#Article 7 (5): if this is anonymous, then it entered the public domain in Vietnam about one week after the URAA date under Berne Convention rules. On the other hand, Vietnam didn't adopt the Berne Convention until 2004, so maybe the country didn't have to follow that rule at that point May need more information about old Vietnamese laws. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
- That's borderline, but possible. Did it count based on 1 January of the year in which the work was created (assuming the author of this work is unknown) or of the following year? If the former, and this is an anonymous work, PD. If the latter, not PD at the time of restoration.Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- date is identified, see http://www.ngaymoi.vn/mai-mai-la-dai-tuong-p53a13025.html .. and yes, it would be PD in Vietnam. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No indication of the year of original publication (just creation). If it was not originally published in Vietnam in or before 1947, the work would not have been PD in Vietnam on the date of restoration, per w:Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This photo has been used in North Vietnamese currency from 1951 [6]. This means that it has been published before that time. According to Vietnamese Law on Intellectual Property, it is in Public Domain. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- It's not the same ! --5.147.51.58 23:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
- Public domain in Vietnam. It also needs to be PD in the US to be on Commons, which it may not be if we don't have proof of a 1947 publication date (or earlier)Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- This photo has been used in North Vietnamese currency from 1951 [6]. This means that it has been published before that time. According to Vietnamese Law on Intellectual Property, it is in Public Domain. --Trust Is All You Need (talk) 16:15, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Vietnam it not subject of restoration: (see anytime) Commons:Hirtle chart
- Erm, yes it is. Did you read the entry? Vietnam's date of restoration was December 23, 1998Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Works First Published Outside the U.S. by Foreign Nationals or U.S. Citizens Living Abroad. On Commons these cases also need to be free according to copyright terms in the country of publication. These terms are not part of this table. Vietnam it mentioned as state without copyright relations, like Iran or Ethiopia.
- On Commons the images need to be free in both the US and Vietnam. As US copyright was extended because of the URAA, this is not free enough for Commons.Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 10:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This file was initially tagged by Eleassar as Copyvio (copyvio) and the most recent rationale was: Per the same reasoning as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grb Pirana.svg and other images of coats of arms by User:Conquistador (see his talk page). INeverCry 18:12, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Additionally, with the same rationale, File:Zastava Kopra.svg. --Eleassar (t/p) 20:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Keep. The "own work"-tag here is (as with any flag image) is nonsense (at least in many european countries). If you redraw an image, you do not have a copyright on it.--Antemister (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Carl Lindberg, whom I consider an experienced user, would "lean delete on these pretty strongly".[7] So either they are deleted, or that deletion discussion should be reviewed at COM:UNDEL. --Eleassar (t/p) 22:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
- Per the same rationale, also
- --Eleassar (t/p) 11:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Deleted: Unclear copyright status. Unless we have clear, explicit written/textual, tangible evidence indicating that this file is indeed freely licensed under a Commons compatible license, we cannot host it on Commons FASTILY (TALK) 10:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Maps of visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens
[edit]- File:BosnianPassportVisaFree.PNG (outdated)
- File:BH Passport Visa free1.PNG
- File:BH Passport Visa free22.PNG
- File:BosnianPassportVisaFree.PNG (outdated)
- File:BosniaVisaPolicy.PNG (outdated and wrong)
- File:Map of Countries that can be Visited Visa Free on a Bosnian Passport.png (outdated)
- File:BosnianPassportVisaFree3.jpg
- File:BosnianPassportVisaFree3.PNG
- File:BH visa-free map.png
- FIle:BH Passport Visa free regime.PNG
I Found lot of world maps visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens. Most of them are similar and outdated (some even wrong). My proposal is to delete all of them, exept File:BH visa-free travel map.png, which is correct, and only file used is Wikipedia articles. It will be also easier to update one file, than eleven files. --Smooth_O (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
- Comment I also proposed rename of File:BH visa-free travel map.png to more appropriate File:Map of visa requirements for Bosnia and Herzegovina citizens.png. --Smooth_O (talk) 12:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Deleted: FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC)